See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356192104

Graduate Students' Challenges in Academic Writing

Thesis · November 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20113.92008

CITATIONS READS

0 4,267

1 author:

Khaled Alostath
Istanbul Aydin University
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thesis Proposal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaled Alostath on 16 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 T.C.

ISTANBUL AYDIN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES

GRADUATE STUDENTS’ CHALLENGES IN ACADEMIC WRITING

MASTER THESIS

Khaled A. H. ALOSTATH

Department of English Language and Literature

English Language and Literature Program

SEPTEMBER, 2021
 T.C.

ISTANBUL AYDIN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES

GRADUATE STUDENTS’ CHALLENGES IN ACADEMIC WRITING

MASTER THESIS

Khaled A. H. ALOSTATH

(Y1812.020009)

Department of English Language and Literature

English Language and Literature Program

Thesis Advisor: Assit. Prof. Hülya YUMRU

SEPTEMBER, 2021
ONAY FORMU
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare with respect that the study “Graduate Students’ Challenges in
Academic Writing”, which I submitted as a Master thesis, is written without any
assistance in violation of scientific ethics and traditions in all the processes from the
Project phase to the conclusion of the thesis and that the works I have benefited are from
those shown in the Bibliography. (06/09/2021)

Khaled A. H. ALOSTATH

i
ii
 FOREWORD

Thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Hulya Yumru, for your patience, guidance, and
support. I have benefited greatly from your wealth of knowledge and meticulous
editing. I am extremely grateful that you took me on as a student and continued to have
faith in me over the years.

Thank you to my Jury members, Prof. Dr. Birsen Tutunis and Prof. Türkay
Bulut, for your patience and your significant comments, recommendations, and
suggestions during the last couple of months. I have learned a lot from you, and I will
be extremely cautious with everything you have shared with me in my future studies.

I would like to extend my thanks to all the participants in this study for their time
and their generous and thoughtful contributions. Thanks also to all academic staff and
students who completed the surveys and the interviews. This work would not have
been possible without each of them.

I am grateful beyond words to my dearest family from Palestine to the USA.

Thank you to my parents, Alaa Alostath and Tahani Alostath, my brothers, Karam,
Mohammed, Hamza, and my sister Eman. Thank you for teaching me, guiding me,
and enlightening me through this Journey, and supporting me with all you could. You
have always stood behind me, and this was no exception. Mom and Dad, thank you
for fielding a ridiculous number of phone calls, for calming me down, and for always
reminding me that I can achieve my dreams.

Thank you to my second family and best friends, Cathy Baker and Brian Barber,
who kept the home fires burning, happily accommodated me through the years, opened
their hearts and homes to me, dashed plans, encouraged and inspired me, not only in
my MA study but always. Thank you to David Baker, Greg Sherrard, Veronica
Sherrard, Caroline Sherrard, Michael Allen, Susan Baker Buie, Carolyn Reser, Maya
Sophia Ross, and all.

iii
 This thesis is dedicated with love to my parents, Alaa Alostath and Tahani
Alostath. To my best friend and (host) mother, Cathy Baker. To my teacher, friend,
and the sunshine of my life, Brian Barber.

September 2021 Khaled A. H. ALOSTATH

iv
 GRADUATE STUDENTS’ CHALLENGES IN ACADEMIC
WRITING

ABSTRACT

Graduate students, unlike other learners, are constantly under pressure, with
more responsibilities and challenges in their daily lives, let alone their academic life.
Many studies have been carried out among ESL/EFL undergraduate students' writing
strategies and challenges (e.g., Cheng, 2002; Wang & Wen, 2002; Mustafa, 2018;
Zhang et al., 2021), yet there have not been adequate studies addressing master’s
graduate students scholarly writing strategies and writing challenges (e.g., Hemmings
et al., 2007; Gomez, 2014; Molinari, 2019). Also, the number of students who are
blamed for lacking the appropriate preparation to write academically at the graduate
level is proliferating (Holmes et al., 2018; Collins, 2015). The aim of this mixed-
methods study was to 1) investigate EFL graduate students’ academic writing
strategies in their writing practices, 2) study EFL graduate students’ perceptions and
attitudes towards academic writing, 3) explore the sources that EFL graduate students’
access to attain their writing tasks, 4) investigate the challenges that the EFL graduate
students’ encounter and struggle with in academic writing, 5) explore the faculty
members’ perceptions on what is problematic in graduate students academic writing
practices, and 6) elicit suggestions from the faculty members to help EFL graduate
students in improving their academic writing skills. The study was conducted in the
2020-2021 academic year and the participants were 28 Master's students enrolled in a
foundation university in Istanbul, Turkey. A questionnaire and semi-structured
interviews were conducted with the master’s graduate students, while an open-ended
questionnaire was used with five faculty members. The study findings exhibited
various writing strategies that the master’s graduate students utilize in their writing
(e.g., reading scholarly writing, efficient communication with peers, etc.). As for the
master’s graduate students’ perceptions and attitudes towards academic writing,
almost all participants reported positive attitudes towards academic writing at the

v
master’s level and their desire to attend academic writing courses. Also, they reported
that they always rely on journals to attain their writing tasks more than on books
because access to the latter is scarce and expensive. Furthermore, the students reported
various difficulties that they struggle with in scholarly writing (e.g., written
assignments, reflective essays, research proposals, research articles, thesis writing).
Four themes (academic writing as a main obstacle, influences on the writing process,
supervisors' relationship, and socioeconomic problems) were identified as the primary
problems the master’s graduate students encountered in their academic writing. The
findings from the open-ended questionnaires with faculty members revealed numerous
problems (e.g., incompetence in written English, lack of synthesis in writing,
inadequacy in using academic writing style to build arguments and claims in their
research), among other problems that the master’s graduate students commit in their
academic writing. Faculty members' perceptions of the master’s graduate students'
academic writing performance suggest that the former do not meet the rigor and
demands of academic writing at the master’s level. However, both the students and the
faculty members agreed on reading scholarly work as a working strategy to write
academically better. Notwithstanding, this study argues that there might be more
effective approaches to deal with graduate students' difficulties in academic writing
that provide maximum benefits for students. The study supports providing graduate
students apt support and guidance to enhance, improve, and advance their academic
writing skills.

Keywords: Academic writing, Graduate students, Faculty members, EFL, Mixed

methods.

vi
 LİSANSÜSTÜ ÖĞRENCİLERİN AKADEMİK YAZMADA
KARŞILAŞTIKLARI ZORLUKLAR

ÖZET

Lisansüstü öğrenciler, diğer öğrencilere kıyasla daha sık baskı altında olup,
günlük hayatlarının dışında da akademik olarak daha çok sorumluluğa sahiptir.
ESL/EFL lisans öğrencilerinin yazma yöntemleri ve sorunları üzerinde yapılmış
sayısız çalışma bulunmaktadır (örn: Cheng, 2002; Wang & Wen, 2002; Mustafa, 2018;
Zhang ve diğerleri., 2021). Nitekim lisansüstü öğrencilerin akademik yazma
yöntemleri ve yazma sorunları üzerine yapılmış yeterli sayıda araştırma
bulunmamaktadır (örn: Hemmings ve diğerleri., 2007; Gomez, 2014; Molinari, 2019).
Bununla birlikte lisans mezunu seviyesinde olup gerekli akademik yazma becerisi ve
hazırlığının eksik olduğu eleştirileri alan öğrenciler artış göstermekte (Holmes ve
diğerleri., 2018; Collins, 2015). Karma metotlu bu çalışmanın hedefi 1) EFL lisans
mezunu öğrencilerin yazı denemelerinde akademik yazma yöntemlerinin incelenmesi,
2) EFL lisans mezunu öğrencilerin akademik yazmaya karşı görüş ve algıları, 3) EFL
lisans mezunu öğrencilerin yazı görevlerini aldıkları kaynakları incelemek, 4) EFL
lisan mezunu öğrencilerin akademik yazmada karşılaştığı sorunları incelemek, 5)
fakülte eğitim üyelerinin lisans mezunu öğrencilerin akademik yazmada yaşadığı
sorunların kaynağı hakkındaki düşüncelerini incelemek, ve 6) fakülte eğitim
üyelerinden lisans mezunu öğrencilerin akademik yazmadaki sorunlarını gidermek
için öneri oluşturmaya teşvik etmek. Bu araştırma 2020-2021 yılında yapılmış olup,
katılımcılar İstanbul, Türkiye’de bulunan bir vakıf üniversitesinin 28 yüksek lisans
öğrencisidir. Yüksek lisans öğrencilerine bir anket ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme
yapılmıştır. 5 fakülte eğitim üyesine de açık uçlu anket yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları
lisans üstü öğrencilerin yazmada kullandığı çeşitli yöntemler gözlemlemiştir (örn:
Akademik yazılar okumak, akranları ile etkili iletişimde bulunmak, vb.). Lisansüstü
öğrencilerin akademik yazmaya karşı algı ve görüşlerine gelince, katılımcıların
tamamına yakın bir oranı akademik yazmaya karşı olumlu algısı olup, akademik

vii
yazma derslerine katılmaya istek gösterdi. Bunun yanı sıra, lisans üstü öğrencilerin
yazma görevlerini yerine getirme becerisi için hem erişilebilirlik hem de maddi olarak
daha uygun olmasından dolayı kitaplardan ziyade akademik dergilerden
faydalandıkları gözlemlendi. Ayrıca öğrenciler akademik yazma süresince çeşitli
zorluklardan bahsedildi (örn: Yazılı görevler, yansıtma kağıtları, araştırma önerisi,
araştırma makaleleri, tez yazma). Lisansüstü öğrencilerin akademik yazmada
karşılaştığı problemler dört ana temadan oluşturmaktadır (akademik yazmanın ana
engel olması, yazmayı etkileyen unsurlar, danışman ile olan ilişki ve sosyoekonomik
sorunlar). Fakülte öğretim üyelerine yapılan açık uçlu anketin bulguları çeşitli
sorunları açığa çıkardı (örn: İngilizce yazılı dilde yetersiz olmak, yazma bireşim
eksikliği, tartışma ve iddia aşamalarını oluşturmak için gerekli akademik yazma stiline
hâkim olmamak). Fakülte eğitim üyelerinin lisansüstü öğrencilerin akademik yazma
performansları hakkındaki görüşleri, yüksek lisans seviyesinde akademik yazma
gereksinimlerinin ve titizliğin olmadığı yönünde. Nitekim öğrenciler ve eğitim üyeleri
akademik makale okumayı, akademik yazmayı geliştiren bir yöntem olmasında
hemfikir. Buna rağmen bu araştırma lisansüstü öğrencilerin akademik yazmada
karşılaştıkları sorunlara karşı azami fayda gösterecek farklı yaklaşımların da
olabileceğini tartışır. Bu araştırma lisans mezunu öğrencilerin akademik yazma
yeteneğinin gelişmesi için destek ve rehberliğe ihtiyaçları olduğunu savunur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Akademik yazma, Lisans mezunu öğrenciler, Fakülte eğitim

üyeleri, EFL, Karma metot.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... i
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ v
ÖZET......................................................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xvii
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
A. Background of the Study .................................................................................... 1
B. The Study Purpose .............................................................................................. 4
C. Research Questions ............................................................................................. 5
D. The Significance of the Study............................................................................. 6
E. Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................... 7
II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 9
A. Overview............................................................................................................. 9
B. The Nature of Writing ........................................................................................ 9
C. The Importance of Academic Writing .............................................................. 12
D. Studies on First Language (L1) and Second Language (L2) ............................ 13
E. Graduate Students’ Academic Writing Strategies ............................................ 15
F. Graduate Students Academic Writing Challenges ........................................... 16
G. Faculty Perception on Graduate Students’ Writing Practices and Problems .... 21
III. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 23
A. Overview........................................................................................................... 23
B. The Study Participants ...................................................................................... 23
1. EFL Master’s Graduate Students ................................................................... 23
2. Faculty Members ............................................................................................ 26
C. Research Design ............................................................................................... 27

ix
 D. Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................. 27
E. Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 29
F. Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 30
IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 33
A. Overview ........................................................................................................... 33
B. Quantitative Findings ........................................................................................ 34
1. Findings of Students' Writing Strategies and Behaviors ................................ 34
2. Findings of Graduate Students' Attitudes Towards Writing Assignments and
Sources Used in Academic Writing ................................................................... 39
3. Findings of Students’ Writing Weaknesses and Difficulties in Academic
Writing ............................................................................................................... 40
C. Qualitative Findings from The Semi-Structured Interviews............................. 41
1. Analysis of Qualitative Findings .................................................................... 41
2. Presentation of the Qualitative Findings ........................................................ 42
a. Academic writing as the main obstacle ..................................................... 43
b. Influences on the writing process .............................................................. 51
c. Socioeconomic problems ........................................................................... 54
d. Supervisors’ relationship ........................................................................... 59
e. Coping with academic writing challenges ................................................. 62
f. Students’ attitudes and recommendations ................................................. 65
D. Qualitative Findings from the Open-Ended Questionnaires ............................. 67
1. Presentation of Findings from the Open-Ended Questionnaires .................... 67
a. Academic writing related obstacles ........................................................... 67
b. Faculty members perceptions and recommendations ................................ 69
2. Chapter Summary ........................................................................................... 70
V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS ............................ 73
A. Overview ........................................................................................................... 73
B. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 73
1. Research Question 1: What writing strategies do graduate students use in
academic writing? .............................................................................................. 73
2. Research Question 2: What are the graduate students’ attitudes and behaviors
towards academic writing assignments? ............................................................ 75
3. Research Question 3: What sources do graduate students’ use to complete
academic writing tasks? ..................................................................................... 76

x
 4. Research Question 4: What difficulties do graduate students’ experience in
completing academic writing tasks? .................................................................. 77
5. Research Question 5: What are the faculty members’ perspectives on what is
problematic in graduate students academic writing practices? .......................... 88
6. Research Question 6: What are faculty members’ suggestions to improve
graduate students’ academic writing? ................................................................ 89
C. The Implications of the Study .......................................................................... 90
D. Limitations of the Study ................................................................................... 92
E. Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................ 93
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 95
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 127
RESUME................................................................................................................. 149

xi
xii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

L2 : Acronym for a Person's Second Language.

L1 : Acronym for a Person’s First Language.

EFL : Abbreviation for English as a Foreign Language.

ESL : Abbreviation for English as a Second Language.

xiii
xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Participants Distribution of Nationality ..................................................... 25

Figure 2. Academic Writing Related Obstacles from The Perspective of Faculty
Members .................................................................................................... 68
Figure 3. Word Cloud of the Faculty Members' Recommendations to Overcome
Academic Writing Problems ..................................................................... 70
Figure 4. Conceptual Map of the Relationships Between Retreat Outcomes and Key
Themes ...................................................................................................... 91

xv
xvi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Biodata Profile of Graduate Students in the Questionnaire ....................... 23

Table 2. Biodata Profile of Master’s Graduate Students in the Semi-Structured
Interviews .................................................................................................. 25
Table 3. Biodata Profile of Faculty Members ......................................................... 26
Table 4. Graduate Students' Writing Strategies and Behaviors ............................... 34
Table 5. The Most and the Least Frequent Writing Strategies and Behvaiours ...... 38
Table 6. Participants Attitudes Towards Writing Assignments and Sources Used in
Academic Writing...................................................................................... 39
Table 7. Participants Weaknesses and Difficulties in Academic Writing Assignments
................................................................................................................... 40
Table 8. Summary of Themes and Subthemes from Semi-Structured Interviews .. 42
Table 9. Summary of Themes and Subthemes from Open-Ended Questionnaire ... 67
Table G1. Graduate Students Attitudes towards Writing Assignments in English.. 144
Table G2. The Frequency of Problems/Difficulties Students Face in Academic Writing
................................................................................................................. 145
Table G3. Themes and Subthemes Emerged from the Semi-Structured Interviews with
Participants .............................................................................................. 146

xvii
xviii
I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the background for the study and a detailed description of
the study content. It also includes detailed information about the purpose of the study,
the research questions, the significance of the study, and the definition of terms.

A. Background of the Study

Language as a means of communication has gathered great importance over the

decades in cultural and social interactions. Nowadays, the English language is used as
the lingua franca (Seidlhofer, 2013; Ehrenreich, 2012). The English language became
very popular in educational settings and teaching environments (Brutt-Griffler, 2003).
With the English language as a de facto universal language of science, many students
and learners sought to enroll in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) educational settings. Following this trend, researchers started
to investigate the acculturation of ESL/EFL students' related problems, concerns, and
the degree to which they are aware of language use. Issues emerging from the literature
are related to students' native language and L2 writing, how ESL/EFL students deal
with the new educational shift, and how their culture and previous learning experiences
influence their new learning environment.

Scholarly writing is a prime fundamental aspect of graduate school and higher

educational settings (Ferguson, 2009; Murry & Newton, 2009). Researchers have
different perspectives when defining academic writing. Al-Mubarak (2017), for
example, explain it as "scientific writing which is portrayed as organized research
practiced and utilized by researchers at higher education level" (p. 176). Lavelle and
Bushrow (2007) use the term "graduate writing process," referring to it as a
constructive process that students use "to make meaning beyond the sum of words"
(p.808). Bartholomae (1985) defines the discourse of the academic writing community
as "the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and
arguing" (p.134). However, there is a general agreement that it is a formal language
that researchers and students use in academic settings to express new ideas, convey

1
their points of view, and agreed upon previous studies for other scholars and academic
writers (Labaree, 2009).

The literature on graduate students in academic writing indicates that a large

number of graduate students are far away from being able to compose an academic
text, and they lack the primary skills, even among the most experienced ones (Mc.
Grail et al., 2006; Hemmings et al., 2007; Casanvave, 2004). In practical terms, the
number of graduate students who are blamed for failing to write academically at
graduate school is proliferating for varied reasons, such as students lack confidence in
their academic writing, students fear that they might receive negative feedback on their
writing, inadequate time devoted for writing, lack of access to effective research
sources, indecisive on a research topic, and students lack written competence, to name
a few reasons (Holmes et al., 2018; Collins, 2015). Therefore, researchers agree that
writing is more complex than a language skill that is likely to be studied easily;
however, it is a prime milestone in graduate students' academic life (Akçaoğlu, 2011).
Leming (1977) points out the importance of supporting graduate students' academic
writing and prepare them for professional life, while Struck (1976) calls to design a
specific course to assist graduate students and their writing.

Over the last two decades, several studies have been conducted on the writing-
composition-process students take on in their writing (Pajares & Johnson, 1994; Shell
et al., 1995). For instance, Chemishanova (2010) explored whether ESL engineering
students have internalized the process approach to writing and whether they have
applied any rhetorical knowledge in students' academic writing. The research,
therefore, detected students' understanding of the overall writing process and the
variables that impact their composing process (Chemishanova, 2010). The findings of
Chemishanova's (2010) study reveal that there is a contradiction between students'
"perception" and "articulation" of writing as a process as students considered the
writing process as if they are a "set of concrete stages" (p. 133). This conclusion is
consistent with Winsor's (1990) longitudinal study on students writing practices.

Given the challenges that graduate school imposes on its students and the
expectations of writing demands (academic papers, reflective essays, researcher
proposals), students are expected to perform well and produce well-written research
papers. Thus, to meet these demands, students need to be well-resourced with the
foundation skills and knowledge to attain this purpose. Myles (2002) states that

2
"academic writing requires conscious effort and much practice in composing,
developing, and analyzing ideas" (p. 1). Notwithstanding, most universities do not
offer their graduate students any academic writing classes, courses, or professional
support. The shortage of academic writing support is causing massive problems to
students who graduated and became teachers and professors afterward. Even the ones
that offer their students preparatory writing academic training have no practical part
and focus on the composition aspects; therefore, they fail in preparation for graduate-
level writing settings (Angelova & Riazantseva, 1999).

Furthermore, through the last few decades, researchers investigated the problems
ESL and EFL students struggle with in their academic writing that correlated with
many variables such as diverse cultures, native languages, and educational systems
(Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Paltridge, 1997; Gay, 2013). The findings of these
studies showed numerous obstacles that graduate students face and deal with in their
writing. These problems were incorrect punctuation, inaccuracy and inappropriateness
of grammar, vocabulary choice, quality of paragraph organization, the overall quality
of research paper, the quality of written content, lack of progressive ideas, students'
inability to address the research adequately and directly, students' failure to use
academic tone, style and attitude while writing, and students' inability to meet the
assignment requirements. Furthermore, Silva (1993) argues that there is a distinction
between ESL and [EFL] graduate students writing in L1 and English in L2. He states
that the similarities that students might share are superficial in terms of "planning,
transcribing, and reviewing, and the features of written texts (i.e., fluency, accuracy,
quality, and structure" (Silva, 1993, p.657). Several graduate students assert that they
find academic writing difficult because they lack linguistic competence (Bitchener &
Basturkmen, 2006). Yet, the notion of academic writing is more complicated than
learning linguistic abilities (Angelova & Riazantseva, 1999).

Self-efficacy and academic writing are strongly tied to the students at the
graduate level academic writing performance. The term self-efficacy is widely quoted
as "people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of
performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives" (Bandura, 2010,
p. 1). However, in academic writing, self-efficacy can be defined as learners'
confidence and adaptivity to produce a well-written text under any circumstances
(Huerta et al., 2017). The significance of self-efficacy and its relationship with

3
graduate students and their writing stems from the fact that graduate students' feelings
and social encounters might negatively or positively affect their writing practices
(Mattern & Shaw, 2010; Whitley & Grous, 2009; Hemmings & Kay, 2010). Thus,
understanding and acknowledging their feelings can help resolve their difficulties in
academic settings. For instance, Huerta et al. (2017) affirm the importance of
addressing graduate students' problems in academic writing and highlight their
challenges to solve them and help students be better writers. That advocates the
findings of previous studies correlation between self-efficacy and writing
achievement, where learners with high self-efficacy reported higher writing
achievement (Pajares, 2003).

Considering the previously mentioned issues, we come to understand that

writing in English is a complex activity, and ESL/EFL graduate students need support
and assistance with the necessities of academic writing because writing is developed
and learned by writing and improved by practice (Grant & Knowles, 2000; Aitchison
& Guerin, 2014). Enormous studies were conducted among undergraduate students
writing (e.g., Austen, 1999; Pineteh, 2014; Yang, 2018). Nevertheless, there is still
inadequate literature on master students' academic writing nature, the strategies they
employ in their writing, their challenges in scholarly writing, and their ways to cope
(Henderson & Cook, 2020).

B. The Study Purpose

There are several motives to write academically at the graduate level; it enhances
students' abilities and leads them to brainstorm and discover their research interests. It
also encourages them to think critically, present their ideas, thoughts, points of view,
defend their perspectives using particular strategies in a written format. To meet
satisfactory results, graduate writers prefer to follow specific strategies or tactics to
help them through writing. Some ESL/EFL students rely on their L1 writing strategies
to manage their writing assignments (Leki, 1995), other students employ other
approaches like freewriting (Li, 2007). Furthermore, writing strategies vary between
expert writers and novel ones (Benton et al., 1984). For instance, skilled writers tend
to use several writing strategies (Green & Oxford, 1995) compared to unskilled writers
(He, 2005), who lack the knowledge and the skills of composing in writing (Bitchener,

4
J., & Basturkmen, 2006). Furthermore, the writing strategies they might use are likely
to fail (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990).

While graduate students strive to apply different writing strategies when writing
academically, they still fail to meet graduate school academic writing demands.
Researchers call for a more in-depth analysis of graduate academic writing challenges
(Chou, 2011). However, the literature shows the inadequacy of ESL/EEL graduate
students writing challenges and possible approaches to help them cope with this
dilemma (Chou, 2011).

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate EFL graduate students’ academic

writing strategies in their writing practices. Also, it aimed to study the master graduate
students' perceptions and attitudes towards academic writing, the sources that they
access to accomplish their writing tasks. Furthermore, the study aimed to investigate
the challenges of master students in academic writing in-depth (e.g., assignments,
research proposals, reflective essays), the main variables that trigger these difficulties,
and the faculty insights and suggestions to reduce and overcome these difficulties.

C. Research Questions

The following questions were answered in the current Study:

1. What writing strategies do graduate students use in academic writing?

2. What are graduate students' attitudes and behaviors towards academic
writing assignments?
3. What sources do graduate students use to complete academic writing tasks?
4. What difficulties do graduate students experience in completing academic
writing tasks?
5. What is the faculty members' perspective on what is problematic in graduate
students' academic writing practices?
6. What are faculty members' suggestions to improve graduate students'
academic writing skills?

5
D. The Significance of the Study

Learning English as an SL/FL is stressful and requires a broad range of skills

that learners should consider. ESL/EFL students might have inadequate academic
writing skills than native speakers who have better access to the language. However,
the effects of the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) writing practices
have emphasized focus among researchers. Al- Fadda (2012) believes that writing in
L2 requires proficiency in writing in native language. Along the same line, Cumming's
(1990) study findings demonstrate that having writing skills in L1 helps learners in
their L2 writing tasks and makes the transition easier.

Academic writing has many challenges across disciplines (i.e., management,

communication, and understanding). Lavelle and Bushrow (2007) state that graduate
students' academic writing demands are increasing, and their writing practices should
pay great attention and emphasis on "depth and breadth, demand for genre
competence, and often an expectation for publication" (p. 809). Consequently,
graduate writers should continually develop and improve their academic writing skills
(Thomas, 2013). As evidence from literature, researchers have explored postgraduate
students academic writing characteristics (Tran, 2010; Whitley & Grous, 2009),
writing experiences (Lambie et al., 2008), motivation (Can & Walker, 2011), cultural
basis (Maguire, 2011), professional experiences (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000), and
studying habits (Whitey & Grous, 2009). These characteristics affect graduate students
scholarly writing in one way or another.

Students' lack of academic writing approaches, discourse practices, and weak

grammatical usage in the English language make academic writing more complicated.
Also, graduate students struggle with additional challenges other than the ones
previously mentioned above. These problems are not limited to breaking up long
sentences, summarizing and understanding extended writing, using accurate synonyms
to express the same meaning with a different vocabulary, grammatical errors,
capitalization, the lack of using supporting ideas, wrong usage of prefixes and suffixes,
tenses, spelling errors, organizing paragraphs, paraphrasing, using appropriate and
varied conjunctions and punctuation (Aloglah, 2018; Holmes, 2003; Khan, 2011).

6
 The scholarship on L2 academic writing struggle reveals a wide gap in their
writing process and skills (e.g., Al-Shabanah, 2005, Larcombe et al., 2007; Cadman,
2000). In a study by Al-Khairy (2013), the researcher points out that students' problems
in scholarly writing could be related to L1 interference, shortage of task guidance,
misunderstanding the assignment, and low point of view in writing. Also, Young and
Schartner (2014) believe that graduate students' challenges are related to academic
literacy, learning specific settings at the host university, L2 language skills, and writing
conventions.

In the light of the previously mentioned studies regarding academic writing

among graduate students, this research has taken a further step in investigating
graduate master students' academic writing strategies and challenges. Also, it studied
the causes beyond these problems, the faculty members' perceptions, and suggestions
to reduce and minimize these problems. The study results are significant to help
graduate students spot, understand and avoid these problems and obstacles in their
scholarly writing.

E. Definitions of Terms

Academic Writing: It is a style of expression used by scholars and researchers to

express and share "the intellectual boundaries of their disciplines and specific areas of
expertise" (USC, 2020). Also, it is known that it has a formal tone and style, but at the
same time, it does not use complex language and does not require complex vocabulary
or long sentences. Academic writing aims to convey new knowledge and agreed on
previous studies about philosophical ideas or concepts for a group of scholarly experts
(Labaree, 2009).

Writing Strategies: It is a compensatory system in which learners or educators

intentionally exploit the effectiveness of their performance or overcome a situation or
a problem in their writing (Flower & Hayes, 1980).

• L2: Acronym for a Person's Second Language.

• L1: Acronym for a Person’s First Language.
• EFL: Abbreviation for English as a Foreign Language.
• ESL: Abbreviation for English as a Second Language.

7
8
II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Overview

This chapter explores literature related to the intersection between ESL/EFL

graduate academic writing, graduate students writing challenges, and academic writing
expectations. The researcher divided this chapter into six categories. The chapter
begins with a brief introduction of the nature of writing as a communication-based
skill, the demands that writing presents on the writer, and what makes our writing
academic. Then, it is followed with a definition of academic writing, the requirements
of academic writing that graduate students need to attain, and the importance of
academic writing at the graduate level. The third part focuses on the interaction
between graduate students' L1 and English and how that influences their academic
writing. It also addresses the interconnection between graduate students' scholarly
writing and their performance, the similarities and differences that revolve around L1
and L2, and the interaction between graduate students' L2 writing and socio-cultural
context. The fourth part presents a broad range of pedagogical shifts in academic
writing strategies that have been of significant interest among scholars. The
interconnection between the process approach and the writing strategies, the several
writing strategies, and the shortage of effective academic writing strategies among
graduate students. The fourth part draws attention to the graduate students' academic
writing challenges regarding discourse-level problems, sentence-level problems, and
other obstacles that graduate students struggle with in their writing. The researcher
concludes with faculty perception of graduate students' academic writing problems,
practices, and expectations.

B. The Nature of Writing

On the nature of writing, Goody and Watt (1968) argue that writing promotes
high cognitive development among students; however, this perspective has been
essentially contested. The writing experts would agree that the mastery of writing skills

9
would lead to individual and social benefits. However, researchers contend with the
role of writing as a discipline of distraction. We, as humans, are easily distracted when
we are engaged in over one activity. However, in writing, when one concentrates on
both motor and cognitive skills, it generally minimizes distraction. It also helps us
recognize the known and the unknown. For example, every so often, when we think
about something in our heads, we think we know it very well until we write it down.
We rarely write it as satisfactory as it was in our minds. However, regardless of the
agreed-upon attributes, the lack of agreement on writing-related issues suggested by
Goody and Watt's (1968) agreement perseveres.

Another problem reflecting the complex and perplexing of writing as a skill is

the various definitions or the meanings we could illustrate from the term "writing."
The act of writing or the ability to write means forming letters of the alphabets, writing
one's name, writing a list, writing a letter, following stylistic shifts, writing an essay,
writing a journal, writing a diary, writing a novel, writing a book, etc. (Petraglia, 1995).

At the cognitive level, writing presents different demands on the writer.

Vahapassi (1988) classified writing on the cognitive level into three major categories.
Firstly, it might include rudimentary reproduction of ideas (copying, dictation);
secondly, organization of events, ideas, opinions, or thoughts (report, summary);
thirdly, creating or generating ideas or views (defining, reflective essay). In other
words, the above classification sums up that accurate writing is "instrumental,
transactional, and rhetorical" (Petraglia, 2013, p. 80).

Moreover, writing poses different demands on the individual writer. First,

writing is a monologue that the writer presents with no audience feedback expectations
(Vahapassi, 1988). Casanave, however, argues, "reader expectations and audience
analysis are where we need to begin in many L2 writing classes" (2004, p. 50). That
draws more demands on the writers where they are expected to consider the readers'
reactions, misunderstandings, interests, etc. Second, the writer is anticipated to be fully
aware of the spoken and written language as a whole (Chafe & Tannen, 1987). The
writer should know the former concept, for, in its absence, it would affect the
performance of the writer. Third, writing is gleaned from observations, thoughts, ideas,
and experiences, which Vahpassi (1988) confirms by stating that we cannot separate
cognitive skills from learning and our thoughts. However, before writing, we should,
as writers, retrieve these ideas and observations from our memory and support them

10
with examples and related details. Berquist (1983) states that there are other demands
that writing imposes on writers. They are linguistical demands (i.e., vocabulary,
grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, and organization).

Nevertheless, what makes writing academic? What are the conceptions that
make what we write academic? To answer these questions, we have to understand the
various writing purposes and practices that shape the forms of writing tasks. So, what
makes 'academic' is similarly diverse, then what makes writing academic is likely to
be diverse too (Molinari, 2019). Academic writing requires more than following the
lexical and grammatical conventions, but it also expands to include and engage with
the world. Silva and Matsuda (2002) point out that academic writing is a complex web
between the writer, the text, the reality, and the reader. The scholars argue on the task
of the writer for not being as simple as representing the factual reality, but "also has to
negotiate, through the construction of the text, his or her own view these elements of
writing with the views held by the readers" (Silva & Matsuda, 2002, p. 253).
Regardless of the complexity that evolves around the notion of academic writing, there
is consensus about what differentiates academic writing from any other type of writing.
It has to present an argument (Fish, 2017), and sometimes it might go 'beyond
argument' and be about exploring and understanding (Allen, 2015). Zhu's (2004a)
findings on the nature of academic writing suggest that it is about transferring general
writing skills into different contexts. The writing skills students should present are
"audience awareness, logical organization, paragraph development (e.g., a paragraph
should have one main idea only), clarity, sentence structure, grammar, and mechanics"
(Zhu, 2004a, p. 37). However, general writing skills serve as a foundation for academic
writing practices (Zhu, 2004a). In other words, the nature of academic writing requires
not only the transfer of those general writing aspects but also requires learners to have
specific-discipline knowledge and thoughts and communication skills.

To sum up, the complex nature of writing, the context of writing, whether at
school or higher education, and the demands individual posed must not be ignored
when writing and while examining writers. The previously mentioned demands hold a
great insight into the problems and setbacks that writers often face in writing.

11
C. The Importance of Academic Writing

The importance of academic writing has attracted the attention of many scholars
(e.g., Hyland, 2006; Liu, 2013; Singh, 2018; among many others). Many researchers
provide various purposes for academic writing. For example, Torrance et al. (1994)
believe that producing well-written academic text requires the writer to combine
complex ideas with new knowledge. Also, writing as a skill plays a distinct part in
academic settings as it is a skill that draws significant strategies like planning, editing,
revising, and publishing (Duffy, 2012). The literature reveals several reasons for the
role and importance of writing among students at university. For example, it develops
students learning process (Qian & Alvermann, 2002). Also, for many scholars,
excellent writing skills are significant within the social and educational settings where
textual and written activities production serves as the foundation of institutions
(Flaherty & Choi, 2013).

On discussing the process of academic writing, Barton (2017) contends that

writing is more than orthographic stages that students can draw or print on a screen.
However, it includes a meaningful and organizational of selected thoughts where the
writer shares and presents their ideas, perspectives, opinions, experiences, and facts to
the worldview (Barton, 2017). Consequently, academic writing strongly correlates
with student success in higher education (Arkoudis & Tran, 2007). Thus, students need
to master academic writing; to give themselves the chance to express their opinions,
contribute to the analysis and context that supports their ideas within an intellectual
community. Kellogg (2001), on the other hand, believes that writing is a cognitive
process that explores students thinking abilities and verbal proficiency to express ideas
successfully. Al-Fadda (2012) believes that graduate students’ achievement in
academic writing requires the ability to “access, evaluate, and synthesize the words,
ideas, and opinions of others” so students would find their academic voice easily (p.
124). Students [at the graduate level] need to be aware of core issues when writing, for
example,

The types of questions that can be asked, the ways in which

information is collected and analyzed, the purpose and form of common
genres, the ways in which writers create a voice for themselves, and the
appropriate forms of language (Brick, 2012, p.171).

12
 Yağız (2009) states that students at the graduate level are conscious of the
demands they must meet to write scholarly alike that determine their success
academically. Many scholars have examined the tasks that students need to go through
in university and classroom settings concerning scholarly writing (West & Byrd, 1982;
Zhu, 2004a; Hale et al., 1995). Graduate students write various types of academic
written texts such as academic essays (e.g., narrative, descriptive, expository, or
persuasive), research papers (Berhens, 1978), journal articles, and conference papers
(Cameron et al., 2009). Roongrattanakool (1999) states that students are required to
write several complicated academic writing tasks (e.g., reports, theses, dissertations,
and research papers), writing consciously, logically presenting ideas, and being able
to communicate their ideas and clarifying them when needed. Zhu (2004a) stated that
academic graduate writers should be aware of certain aspects of their writing. Those
aspects are awareness of the target audience, unity, logical organization, sentence
structure, paragraph development, and grammatical accuracy (Zhu, 2004a). However,
academic writing is a more complex and constrained activity on cognitive, textual,
communicative, linguistics, and contextual level (Daoud, 1998) that calls for numerous
sub-skills to take part in the process (Benton et al., 1984).

D. Studies on First Language (L1) and Second Language (L2)

Writing in a second language (SL) or a foreign language (FL) is far more

complex than writing in one's mother tongue. Educational institutions must understand
variations that determine learners' L1 and L2 (Brown, 2001). Kern (2000) explains that
L2 writing imposes complex conventions, resources, and norms that students must
meet and understand. If they fail in meeting these conventions, their L2 academic
writing might not be satisfactory (Kern, 2000).

However, to what extent is there a correlation between graduate students'

scholarly writing and their performance at the graduate level? Studies on L2 graduate
students have found that students cannot write effectively in English (Odlin, 1989;
Cooley & Lewkwicz, 1995; Cai, 2013). For example, Cai (2013) acknowledges the
gap between L2 English academic literacy and EFL language graduate students' first
language. The survey findings of Cooley and Lewkowicz (1995) support the previous
claim. The study findings showed that 76% of respondents had difficulties using
English (Cooley & Lewkwicz, 1995). These differences influence the transition

13
between writing strategies and create obstacles in students' native language and target
language. As evidence from the literature, Shaw's (1991) study findings revealed that
graduate students feel worried due to the lack of written academic skills in L2.

In a paper by Stapleton (2002) on the pedagogical tools that L2 students employ,

the researcher express similarities between students' academic writing in L1 and L2.
On the contrary, the existing literature on academic writing among L1 and L2 suggests
otherwise (Silva, 1993). Silva (1993) point out three main variations between L1 and
L2 graduate students' scholarly writing. These differences were strategy, rhetoric, and
linguistics. Noor (2011) further discusses extensive variations in terms of word choice,
sentence subject, and the difference in choosing writing topic where students' native
culture plays a significant role in influencing their decision. Also, there are differences
in terms of organization (e.g., Clyne, 1987; Noor, 2011) and differences based on a
community discourse basis (e.g., Flowerdew, 2000; Spack, 1997).

Furthermore, writing is a highly specialized discipline and is not only about the
linguistic system. There is also an interaction between the writer's L2 and the socio-
cultural context (Mahn, 2008) where the writing takes place and how the writer uses it
meaningfully. Mastuda (2003) suggests that the progressive interaction between L2
learners and academic writing leads to "qualitative transformation" among ESL and
[EFL] writers and the writing process. Several studies have addressed how teaching
and learning writing has gained considerable attention over the last few years due to
many reasons. Mainly due to the rapid increase of research carried out among L2
graduate students (Dar & Khan, 2015). Stapleton (2002), for example, expresses
worries over mispresented and overstated variations of academic writing in L1 and L2.
Years later, however, Wang (2012) was one of the leading researchers to oppose
Stapleton's perspective because it neglects L1 and L2 diversity. Wang's expressed
differences were mainly in the lexicon, sentence, and passage levels (2012).

There are many differences at the passage level that show the complex and
diverse nature of L1 and L2 academic writing, suggests (Wang, 2012). These
differences are in “the choice of writing topic, differences in voice, differences in
organization, differences in reader’s and writer’s responsibility, differences in the
attitude toward quotation, differences in the attitudes on good writing” (Wang, 2012,
p. 638). However, literature shows a need for collaboration between discipline and

14
socio-cultural factors regarding academic writing since it holds a paramount role in
educational settings.

E. Graduate Students’ Academic Writing Strategies

During the last decade, writing pedagogy has shifted the product approach into
the process approach. In other words, teachers stopped asking their students to focus
on the writing task itself but in the process of writing. Before this pedagogy shift,
teachers and educators believed that the writing stages were pre-writing, drafting,
revising, editing, and publishing (Graham & Harris, 2000), regardless of an earlier
study by Susser (1994) that found categorization debatable.

Among the many definitions of the process approach, Flower and Hayes's (1980)
definition stands to be the most applicable. The researchers define the process
approach in writing as "a strategic action where writers use strategies to juggle the
constraints of composing, and that these strategies are the writer's decisions taken to
cope with both perceived linguistic and rhetorical problems" (Flower & Hayes, 1980,
as cited in Ou, 2013, p.7).

Over the last few decades, researchers and studies in the L1 composition level
called for replacing linguistic as the dominant influence in L2 writing (Ou, 2013). One
of the first few calls for writing pedagogical shifts was from Arapoff (1976), who
believes that grammar hinders the writing process. This point of view has been
followed and promoted by Zamel (1976) that emphasizes the importance of using the
creative writing process. However, other researchers support different writing
strategies like pre-writing strategies (McKay, 1981), the usage of journals (Spack &
Sadow, 1983), and providing feedback on the writing between drafts (Keh, 1990).

The process approach became more popular throughout the years, and students'
writing has been freer and more creative to discover ideas, planning, revising, editing,
and publishing. Scholars examine the possibility of having common writing strategies
among students based on their language proficiency and task-based writing strategies
(Ramies, 1987). Other scholars try to find new writing strategies categorizations. For
example, Riazi (1997) classifies writing strategies into four categories: cognitive,
metacognitive, social, and search.

15
 In writing strategies among L2 learners, the literature is rich with related studies
to specific writing strategies. For example, meditating strategies advocating peer
revision (Villamil & Guerrero, 1996), allocating time strategy (Roca et al., 2008;
Reader & Payne, 2007), L1 translation strategy (Liao, 2006), writing from resources
(Kennedy, 1985; Li & Casanave, 2012; Segev-Miller, 2004), revision (Sommers,
1980; Achen, 2018; Kim, 2016), rewriting and paraphrasing (Shi, 2012; Sun, 2009),
planning (Saddler et al., 2004), and using models (Macbeth, 2010). Despite the
growing research on L2 writing, preliminary studies have been done on L2 learners'
strategies in their writing (Raoofi et al., 2017).

The studies that the researcher discussed in this section so far or those explored
in general in this field are learning-related strategies. However, the literature shows a
scarcity in addressing ESL/EFL graduate students' writing strategies to advocate their
writing skills (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Beare, 2000; Rababah & Melhem, 2015;
Asmari, 2013; Matsumoto, 1995). The reasons beyond the inadequacy of ESL/EFL
writing strategies are varied. For example, there are some expectations from L2 writers
in using specific strategies for specific tasks, which depends on the writing type and
context (Ou, 2013). Mu (2005, p. 10) synthesizes 30 writing strategies into five
categories: rhetorical strategies (e.g., organization, L1 usage, formatting),
metacognitive strategies (e.g., planning, monitoring, evaluating), cognitive strategies
(e.g., revising, elaborating, summarizing), communicative strategies (e.g., reduction
and sense or readers), and social/affective strategies (e.g., receiving feedback).
Nevertheless, despite researchers' difficulties in identifying good writing strategies,
the previous classification is helpful even though each researcher classifies writing
strategies differently based on their various standards (Ou, 2013).

F. Graduate Students Academic Writing Challenges

Academic writing is the predominant skill of graduate school and a future career
in academia. From the master's degree thesis to research proposals, conference articles,
essays, abstracts, literature reviews, journal articles, academic writing proficiency is a
requirement to meet the demands and the expectations of graduate school writing.
However, academic writing is not a craft covered merely in a course or explicitly
taught (Antoniou & Moriarty, 2008). A graduate student would be equipped and given
the tools to have a solid grasp of the required academic writing skills in an ideal world.

16
 In many graduate programs worldwide, academic writing courses are considered
a hermit-like activity (Mullen, 2006). They assume that students are ready to tackle
whereas, this is rarely the case. The literature on graduate students' academic problems
postulates strongly that scholarly writing is a challenging skill because most, if not all,
are not well-equipped to undertake it without a solid infrastructure.

Graduate students have difficulties understanding the nature of scholarly writing

at the graduate level (Cadman, 1997; Dong, 1998). Scholarly writing at the graduate
level is different than writing at the undergraduate level or general writing aspects.
Graduate students' academic writing should express the writers' perspective, add
information and knowledge to the research problem, synthesize related theories and
previous studies to the research study, and present all this information in a well-written
academic manner (Gomez, 2013).

The literature on international graduate students postulates the diverse

difficulties they face in their academic writing (e.g., Bitchener & Basturkmen, 2006;
Paltridge, 2002; Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Shaw, 1991; Holmes et al., 2018; Huerta
et al., 2017; Alsaedi, 2017; Zeiger, 2021). Researchers investigate the various
challenges graduate students are struggling with and then sought to put them into
categories. Researchers identified two main themes/groups: discourse-level problems
(e.g., content quality, ideas development, paragraph organization, overall writing
ability) and sentence-level problems (e.g., using accurate grammar rules, academic
vocabulary usage, spelling, punctuation).

Ferris (2012) put up a summary of the obstacles that international graduate

writers encounter writing academically. The study findings show that graduate
students struggle with lexical, rhetorical, and syntactical issues. Thus, these problems
block their ability to produce well-written academic texts. The researcher further
concludes that students have no adequate writing skills to produce extended academic
written papers (Ferris, 2012). While Bridgeman and Carlson (1983) proclaim three
main trending problems among L2 learners. These problems are students' inadequate
scholarly writing skills, lack of understanding of correctness of punctuation and
spelling, and low quality of sentence structure.

17
 The majority of challenges and difficulties graduate students experience in
academic writing are related to their linguistics (i.e., vocabulary, grammar) and
sentence structure (Bitchener & Basturkmen, 2006; Al-Badi, 2015; Dong, 1998). Dong
(1998) probed 169 non-native graduate thesis and dissertation writers from two U.S.-
based institutions. The study findings showed that students struggled with lexical
issues; however, only a few non-native students reported having difficulties in
vocabulary. The majority of L2 English participants stated that vocabulary is
significant in academic writing; however, a low percentage of native students reported
vocabulary as a vital aspect of academic writing, despite some students' struggle in
vocabulary (Dong, 1998).

Along the same lines, Qian and Krugly-Smolska (2008) examined the
perceptions of four Chinese ESL graduate students from several departments in
Canada. The study aimed at exploring their experiences with writing the literature
review using interviews. The study results suggested that the participants struggled
with linguistical problems. The results showed that all participants had limited
vocabulary, and three students out of four had difficulty finding accurate words that
fit in their writing context. The last participant struggled with finding synonyms. Due
to the limited vocabulary, they failed to paraphrase their writing accurately, and
therefore, this affected their writing negatively (Qian & Krugly-Smolska, 2008).

Other researchers investigated other aspects of graduate students writing

problems. A study by Wang and Bakken (2004) concluded that international students
at the graduate level grapple with syntactic obstacles. The study explored ESL
graduate students academic writing research skills based on their culture, L1, previous
English learning, and other variables. Wang and Bakken's (2004) study findings
reported that "Six of seven" ESL researchers in L2 have shaky confidence in their
academic writing skills and abilities (p. 184). Among the shared problems in L2
writing were word usage, grammar accuracy, and sentence structure.

A similar study by Imani and Habil (2012) investigated non-native students'

problem-solving strategies towards scholarly writing and grammar complexity. The
study participants were from three different departments: Teaching English as a
Second Language (TESL), Construction Contract Management (CCM), and Chemical
Engineering (CE). Based on mixed-methods research, the researchers reported that

18
almost all (CCM) and (CE) writers committed grammatical errors, unlike the (TESL)
that had the most grammatical complexity.

Ariyanti and Fitriana (2017) investigated the obstacles in academic essay writing
among EFL student writers and their need to improve their academic writing. The
study findings reported that students struggled with grammar, coherence and cohesion,
paragraph, and vocabulary. The researchers highlighted common grammatical
problems in the students' writing, among many fragment tenses, subject and verb
related problems, misuse of word order, misuse in pronouns, and fragmented sentence
structure (Ariyanti & Fitriana, 2017).

Another common problem among graduate students is the role of feedback on

their written assignments (Bitchener & Basturkmen, 2006; Caffarella & Barnett,
2000). Caffarella and Barnett (2000) study explored the importance of giving and
receiving feedback on scholarly writing among postgraduate students. The findings
showed that participants tended to have feelings of apprehension when receiving
negative feedback on their academic writing tasks and be more suspicious about their
scholarly writing abilities. While Can and Walker's (2011) study on graduate students'
perceptions of feedback and their academic writing tasks revealed that students share
similar feelings towards receiving negative feedback. The findings reported that
students felt embarrassed, lack of self-confidence, being under pressure, other students
lost their motivation to write, some experienced emotional setbacks, and others feared
negative feedback, which affected their writing performance negatively (Can &
Walker, 2011). Speaking of feedback in improving graduate students' writing, Shaw's
(1991) findings that Bitchener and Basturkmen (2006) support emphasized the
significant role of feedback and students' performance. The study participants reported
receiving no formative feedback on the structure or the content of their writing (Shaw,
1991).

Many graduate students use the APA writing style to write their academic
papers. Nevertheless, many of them face challenges and commit multiple errors
(Kokaliari et al., 2012; Howard et al., 2010). Some students' writing lacks agreement
between in-text citation and references (Lambie et al., 2008), whereas other students
fail to present the sources in their writing (Howard et al., 2010). However, few studies
addressed citation and empirical studies among graduate students considering the gap
of their knowledge in this aspect (Petrić, 2007; Lambia et al., 2008; Mansourizadeh &

19
Ahmad, 2011). Lambia et al. (2008) reported four main mistakes in students writing
practices. They include lack of continuity, lack of organization, inadequate empirical
studies citation to build an argument, synthesis of information, particularly in the
literature review. Lambia et al.'s (2008) findings are similar to Lunsford and Lunsford's
(2008), wherein both studies students' writing included inadequate empirical citations.

Another problem among graduate students is anxiety. Research studies suggest

that anxiety affects graduate students writing abilities and performance negatively
(e.g., Rezaei & Jafari, 2014; Huerta et al., 2017; Shang, 2013; Faigley et al., 1981;
Lee, 2005). Many researchers came through a varied range of definitions for language
anxiety. Second Language Anxiety (SLA) is defined as a feeling of tension that
learners feel in the second language context while speaking, writing, and listening
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). McLeod (1987) explains that writing anxiety is a status
where writers feel anxious and caught negative feelings that derange the writing
process and causes delay or problems in ones' writing.

The literature on the correlation between students writing anxiety and their
performance is quite rich. For example, many L1/L2 researchers investigated the
interrelationship between students' anxiety in writing and the factors linked to this
phenomenon (e.g., essay type, self-confidence while writing, writing competence,
writer's block, writing process, teachers' perspective on grammar usage, fear of being
judged, quantitative measures restrictions, etc.). Therefore, studies suggest a
correlation between students writing anxiety and poor performance (e.g., Rabadi &
Rabadi, 2020; Demirçivi, 2020; Aripin & Rahmat, 2021).

Writing anxiety is a problem that can intervene with students’ writing and bring
about severe academic challenges. Lambie et al. (2008) believe that academic writing
generates anxiety among graduate students due to inadequate writing preparation
skills. In Bloom's (1981) study, graduate participants reported feelings of anxiety
towards their academic writing. Onwuegbuzi's (1997) qualitative study where students
enrolled in research methodology courses. The study findings revealed that anxious
students were concerned about the quality of the overall of their wiring. Other
challenges can be poor writing skills or poor work quality (Kilgore et al., 2013; Stewart
et al., 2015) and lower grades (Martinez et al., 2011).

20
 Many factors influence the struggle among graduate students and academic
practices. These factors are personal, institutional, and circumstantial. First of all, the
personal factors include writing self-efficacy (Mattern & Shaw, 2010), inadequate
proficiency in the English language (Whitley & Grous, 2009), and misunderstanding
writing concepts (Irvin, 2010). In the same spirit, Merriam et al. (2007) added that
learners' age, memory, and lack of self-direction influence students writing learning
practices. The researchers suggested that themes like race, gender, and class might
have affected the students' academic writing practices (Merriam et al., 2007). Second,
the institutional factors sought to affect graduate students' academic writing skills.
Plakhotnik and Rocco (2012) reported that graduate students poor writing skills made
them fall behind and not being prepared for the twists of graduate school and its
demands. Finally, students' background culture and educational settings affect students
writing skills (Whitley & Grous, 2009).

G. Faculty Perception on Graduate Students’ Writing Practices and Problems

It is significant to explore educators’ perspectives and perceptions of graduate

students' academic and the challenges that academia imposes on them. Also, it is
important to explore suggestions and recommendations that educators might provide
that can enhance and minimize graduate students’ academic writing obstacles.

With the demands that academia imposes on graduate students, it is expected

from educators to go beyond teaching the textbook. That is due to the demands that
academia imposes on students and their lives. Therefore, professors and instructors are
expected to address academic writing in more conventional methods and not only
focus on teaching textbooks. Montgomery and Baker (2007) believe that teachers are
expected to highlight the process of scholarly writing and encourage their students to
establish a functional system on the basics of academic writing like strategies and
difficulties.

In a study by Behrens (1978), the researcher affirms that many faculty members
declared that they are not concerned about their students' sentence-level problems
(e.g., incorrect vocabulary usage, punctuation, and spelling). However, they are more
concerned about their discourse-level obstacles (e.g., organization of written text)
(Behrens, 1978). In the same context, a study by Bridgeman and Carlson (1983)
explored faculty members' perceptions of non-native graduates' academic writing

21
abilities. The study conclusion revealed that the participants suffer from considerable
to moderate problems in terms of paper organization quality (e.g., paragraph
organization), vocabulary (e.g., using the accurate word in the proper context),
moderate quality content, and inadequately addressing the topic.

In Angelova and Riazantseva's study (1999), the professors applied the same
criteria in grading both L1 and L2 academic writers' writing. However, researchers
were more "lenient about non-native writers' grammar mistakes when these errors did
not disrupt the overall coherence" (p. 509). Nevertheless, some professors reported
that they offered feedback for their students on the organization of their writing and
grammatical aspects as notes or direct corrections; however, students were not given
a chance to go through the corrections to revise and improve their writing (Zhu,
2004b). Hyland (2001) reports that ESL/EFL educators are reluctant to share feedback
on, for example, plagiarism just because it is a western value. Similarly, many faculty
members and lecturers try to avoid talking about plagiarism because of the issues that
it will arise with it (Björklund & Wenestam, 1999).

The literature of action research suggests that faculty members faced challenges
in providing adequate support (Sidman-Taveau et al., 2015). Sidman-Taveau et al
(2015) concluded with extensive obstacles that faculty members experience when
providing feedback and support of their graduate students' scholarly writing. For
example, faculty members lack inadequate effective feedback models to comment on
students writing whereas, and other educators have limited time to provide students
with feedback on the individual level (Sidman-Taveau et al., 2015).

22
III. METHODOLOGY

A. Overview

After the introduction and the literature review were presented in the previous
chapters, this chapter focuses on the research methodology, the data collection
instruments, the data collection procedures, and the methods used for data analysis in
this study.

B. The Study Participants

The current study involved two main groups of participants. The first group is
EFL master’s graduate students who are still enrolled in school or graduated from a
foundation university in Istanbul no more than a year and specialized in the English
Language and Literature (ELL) program. The second group is the faculty members’
(e.g., supervisors, professors) who are involved in the supervision of students’
academic writing at the master’s level at the foundation university.

1. EFL Master’s Graduate Students

In Table 1, the biodata collected from the graduate students in the questionnaire
are presented.

Table 1. Biodata Profile of Graduate Students in the Questionnaire

Variable F %
Gender
Male 10 35.7%
Female 18 64.3%
Age
20 -25 12 42.9%
26-30 9 32.1%
31-35 6 21.4%
36-40 1 3.6%

23
Table 1 (Cont.). Biodata Profile of Graduate Students in the Questionnaire

Variable F %
Level of English
Upper-intermediate 4 14.3%
Advanced 23 82.1%
Native speaker 1 3.6%
First language
Arabic 11 39.3%
Turkish 9 32.1%
Urdu 1 3.6%
Persian 2 7.1%
French 1 3.6%
English 1 3.6%
Kazakh 1 3.6%
Russian 2 7.1%

As seen in Table 1, females were the great majority of the study with 18
participants (64.3%) while male participants were 10 with 35.7%. In terms of age, 12
students (42.9%) aged between 20-25, nine students (32.1%) aged between 26-30, six
students’ (21.4%) age ranged between 31-35, and finally, one student (3.6%) aged
between 36-40. While the findings of the English language proficiency level of
graduate students show that four students (14.3%) reported that they are upper-
intermediate, 23 students (82.1%) reported that they are advanced, whereas one native
speaker of English was among the population of the study (3.6%).

As seen in Table 1, 11 students (39.3%) were native speakers of Arabic, while

nine students (32.1%) were native Turkish. One student (3.6%) was a native of Urdu,
two students (7.1%) were native of Persian, one student’s (3.6%) native language was
French, one student (3.6%) was a native speaker of English, one student (3.6%)
identified their first language as Kazakh, and finally, two students (7.1%) were
Russian.

24
 Figure 1. Participants Distribution of Nationality

Figure 1 presents the diverse nationalities of students who participated in the

study. Two students (7.1%) were Syrians, nine students (32.1%) were Turkish, two
students (7.1%) were Russian, Palestinian participants were five (17.9%), and two
Iranian students (7.1%). However, only one participant (3.6%) joined the study for
each of the following nationalities: Algerian, Tunisian, Cameroonian, Pakistan,
Kazakhstan, Moroccan, Jordanian, and American.

In Table 2, the biodata collected from the master’s graduate students in the semi-
structured interviews are presented.

Table 2. Biodata Profile of Master’s Graduate Students in the Semi-Structured

Interviews

Variable F %
Gender
Male 5 35.7%
Female 9 64.3%
Age
20 -25 1 7.1%
26-30 8 57.1%
31-35 3 21.4%
36-40 1 7.1%
41 and above 1 7.1%
Nationality
Turkish 6 42.9%
Syrian 2 14.3%
Palestinian 1 7.1%
Uzbek 1 7.1%
Kazakhstan 1 7.1%
Iraqi 1 7.1%
Iranian 1 7.1%
Jordanian 1 7.1%

25
 Table 2 above illustrates the total number of semi-structured interview
participants, their ages, and their nationalities. There were 14 master’s graduate
students in the semi-structured interviews: five males (35.7%) and nine females
(64.3%). The main age of participants was 26-30 (57.1%). While participants between
31-35 came in second with (21.4%), and one student (7.1%) for each of the other group
ages. The students in the interview came from diverse cultural backgrounds. Six
students (42.9%) were Turkish, two students (14.3%) were Syrians, and one student
(7.1%) from each of the following nationalities: Palestinian, Uzbek, Kazakhstan, Iraqi,
Iranian, and Jordanian.

2. Faculty Members

The second group of participants was five faculty members who teach and
supervise graduate students at the mater’s level. Table 3 presents faculty members'
biodata profile.

Table 3. Biodata Profile of Faculty Members

Variable F %
Gender
Male 4 80%
Female 1 20%
Age
36-40 2 40%
41 and above 3 60%
Teaching experience
10-15 years 1 20%
16-20 years 1 20%
20 and above years 3 60%
First language
Turkish 4 80%
Persian 1 20%

Table 3 shows a male majority (80%) and one female (20%) among faculty
members. Two faculty members (40%) aged between 36 and 40, while the other three
(60%) were between 41 and above. The majority of faculty members (60%) have +20
years of teaching experience, one member (20%) has teaching experience between 10-
15 years, and another one (20%) has 16-20 years of teaching experience. All faculty
members came from Turkey (80%), except one member (20%) came from Iran.

26
C. Research Design

As per the objectives, a mixed-methods design was used in this study. Mixed
methods design allows the incorporation of qualitative and quantitative data collection
methods to analyze the outcomes of a one-single study (Greene et al., 1989). The
rationale beyond using mixed methods instead of using qualitative or quantitative on
their own is growing in popularity among social and health sciences researchers
(Ivankova et al., 2006). This rapid growth is due to the publication of several studies
that supported, endorsed, and promoted using mixed methodologies as a significant
advancement in research (Creswell, 2009). Researchers tend to do a mix of qualitative
and quantitative data since each approach alone is not sufficient. However, when
combined in mixed methods design, it allows for more detailed and in-depth analysis
(Greene et al., 1989).

This research study depended on a mixed-methods approach for two main

reasons. Firstly, there was a need to gather information from participants out of the
physical reach through a questionnaire. On the other hand, a mixed-methods offer an
in-depth analysis and understanding of the master’s graduate students’ problems and
perspectives on the strategies, challenges, and coping techniques the master’s students
face in their academic writing practices.

The type of mixed methods used in this study was QUAL+ quan or, in other
words, qualitatively driven mixed methods design (Morse & Cheek, 2014). The point
of junction in the data from both components took place in the analytical stage when
the data from the questionnaire was transformed into a narrative and then integrated
into the qualitative analysis. The collected data from quantitative and qualitative
resources were analyzed separately. Then the results were combined, identifying areas
that converged and diverged across the data.

D. Data Collection Instruments

The data in this research were gathered using three instruments: a questionnaire,
a semi-structured interview, and an open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire was
the primary source for the quantitative component, while the semi-structured interview
and open-ended questionnaire were the primary sources of the qualitative data in the
study.

27
 The questionnaire that Al-Badi (2015) developed was used in this study
(Appendix A). The questionnaire included four sections: students' demographic
information such as gender, nationality, and age (section one), students' writing
strategies and behaviors (section two), students' attitudes towards writing assignments
in English, and the sources they like to use (section three), and finally the difficulties
they face when writing (section four). The second section of the questionnaire is based
on a 6-point Likert-type rating scale. There are 12 writing strategies with the response
options always (100%), usually (80%), often (60%), sometimes (40%), rarely (10%),
and never (0%), respectively. Correspondingly, section 3 contained two questions. In
the first question, the students were asked to state their attitude towards English
assignments from Easy to Neither difficult nor easy. The structure of the second
question offered the students four academic sources that the graduate students use to
attain their writing practices, and they are "Books," "Journals," "Both," "other
(specify)," respectively. The fourth and final section suggested eight options that the
researcher believes are problematic in students' writing. These options are
"paraphrasing", "language use", "expressing their own voice", "finding relevant
references", "referencing and citation", "coherence, and cohesion", "choosing a
significant topic", and "others (specify)".

The researcher used Google Forms to collect the data from the participants due
to the COVID-19 global pandemic, and the lack of movement. Thus, Google forms
are widely known for facilitating data collection and analysis (Hsu & Wang, 2017).
The collection of the questionnaires lasted for three weeks. Once the data collection
finished in late September 2020, the questionnaire form stopped accepting responses,
and the researcher downloaded the results.

In the second phase of the research, semi-structured interviews were conducted

with 14 master's graduate students. The researcher implemented semi-structured
interviews to highlight the master's graduate student's academic writing experiences,
challenges, and strategies to cope and overcome those obstacles (Appendix B). The
rationale behind using semi-structured interviews is to "ascertain subjective responses
from persons regarding a particular situation or phenomenon they have experienced"
(McIntosh & Morse, 2015, p. 1). One-to-one (also known as face-to-face) interviews
allow the researcher to interact and observe non-verbal and verbal cues during an
interview (Goundar, 2012; McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Therefore, the interviews

28
granted the researcher the chance to probe in-depth questions of the problems' that the
master's students struggled with and share their experiences and problems in a detailed
manner. Leech (2002) agrees on the importance of using semi-structured interviews in
research settings because it provides respondents the opportunity to be informative and
share ideas like experts in the research.

In the third-final stage, the researcher used an open-ended questionnaire to

investigate the faculty members' perspectives on master's graduate students' academic
writing deficits (Appendix C). The rationale beyond using the open-ended
questionnaire with faculty members is that it provides the participants with a chance
to express themselves, their perspectives, and experiences more freely and with a sense
of individuality (Albudaiwi, 2017). The researcher developed an open-ended
questionnaire with two major sections: demographical data such as gender, age,
teaching experience, and first language in the first section. The second section aimed
to understand the faculty members' perceptions and suggestions on master's students'
problems. The second section consisted of three main questions: the first question
aimed at understanding the faculty members' perception of the master's graduate
students' deficits in academic writing. The second question provided a list of the most
problematics aspects of academic writing among the master's students. Faculty
members were asked to put these problems in order from the most problematic to the
least and report any other obstacles that they might have detected in their supervisees'
academic writing practices. The last question called on faculty members to suggest
schemes or approaches to minimize master's students' academic writing obstacles and
produce better academic writing skills.

E. Data Collection Procedures

Upon receiving the approval letter from the foundation university (Appendix D),
the researcher got in touch with the master's students and sent them the URL of the
questionnaire. The researcher provided the participants with the instructions on filling
the questionnaire and asked them to answer the questions faithfully.

After the foundation university approved the semi-structured interview

(Appendix D), the researcher emailed 28 master's graduate students' (the questionnaire
participants) a consent form to sign (Appendix E). Out of 28 participants, 14 master's
graduate students agreed to participate in the study. The researcher conducted the

29
interviews in a private and a proper place and during a suitable time for participants to
feel comfortable to participate. The structure of the semi-structured interview
questions allowed the interviewer to ask the interviewee to elaborate and frequently
explain with more detailed information based on their answers. The majority of the
interviews were held online using the Zoom software, while some of the interviews
were held face-to-face.

The study participants were the master’s students from the English Language
and Literature department at a foundation university in Istanbul. The interviews began
with some general questions, such as "Can you tell me a little about yourself, please?"
"Can you share your (research proposal, reflective essay, or assignment paper, etc.)
writing experience, please?”. Then, it probed deeply to understand the conditions and
the significant aspects that contributed to the participants' experiences. The interviews
lasted from 25 minutes to 1 hour and were audio-recorded using Sony PX240 Mono
Digital Voice Recorder PX Series and transcribed by the researcher using MAXQDA
software transcription mode. In direct quoting of the students, the research
occasionally re-structured the text by deleting parts of it to ease the reading without
altering the meaning. When the annotation […] appears within a direct quote, it means
that large chunks of text have been removed because they were irrelevant.

In the final stage of the research, the foundation university approved using the
open-ended questionnaire with faculty members (Appendix F). The researcher emailed
ten faculty members from the English Language and Literature department the URL
of the questionnaire; however, only five filled the questionnaire anonymously. The
data from the faculty members were collected between December 2020 and February
2021. The researcher included a summary of the preliminary findings from the
questionnaire and interviews with master’s students (Appendix G).

F. Data Analysis

The quantitative data collected via the questionnaire from the students were
analyzed using descriptive statistics. Mainly to detect the frequency distribution of the
master's graduate students’ writing problems and their strategies when they write
academically. The aim of using descriptive statistics when collecting quantitative data
is to summarize, organize, and give an analysis for a significant number of
observations (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). The researcher analyzed the collected

30
data using MAXQDA software that is designed for mixed-methods data MAXQDA
Analytics Pro.

Upon receiving approval from the foundation university ethical committee, the
researcher contacted the participants to participate in the semi-structured interviews,
collaboratively arranged times, and located suitable places to conduct the interviews.
The qualitative data collected via the semi-structured interview were analyzed using
thematic analysis (TA). This approach focuses on “identifying and describing
prominent themes in the data” and explore the relationships between these themes
(Andes, n.d.). To be more specific, the researcher used a form of theoretical thematic
analysis with a focus on the latent level (Braun & Clarke, 2021; 2019) that goes beyond
the semantic content of the data. The ‘theoretical’ thematic analysis at the latent level
aims to “identify the underlying ideas, assumptions and conceptualizations – and
ideologies – that are theorized as shaping or informing the semantic content of the
data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 88; 2019; 2021). The researcher analyzed the data
using TA phases as a guideline (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The first phase was
transcribing the data, reading them three times, and taking notes. The second phase
was to generate initial codes where the researcher called attention to interesting
information of the data and grouped the information to their pertinent code. The third
phase aimed at looking for themes included collating codes into potential themes
reviewed to ensure they were in relation with codes in the fourth phase and generating
a thematic map of the analysis. In the fifth phase, the researcher defined and named
the themes, and in the sixth and final phase, the researcher produced the final scholarly
report of analysis relating to the research questions. The TA approach was used
because it offers a rich landscape and flexibility to address the research problems
(Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2020). Analysis-wise, the MAXQDA Analytics Pro software
that is designed for mixed-methods research supports thematic coding analysis. It
simplifies and speeds up the work process through its four critical tools of thematic
analysis: memos, codes, segments, and variables.

Lastly, after the researcher studied coherently the initial results collected in
phases one and two, and in light of understanding the master’s graduate students’
problems and challenges in the study, the researcher developed the open-ended
questionnaire. Upon obtaining the ethical committee approval, the researcher emailed
the faculty members the open-ended questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed

31
using the TA approach similarly to the semi-structured interviews with the master’s
graduate students.

32
IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Overview

This study aimed at investigating the master’s graduate students challenges and
obstacles in academic writing (e.g., assignments, research proposals, reflective essays,
thesis writing practices) at the graduate level. Specifically, this mixed-methods study
explored the main variables that trigger these difficulties, the students' approaches to
cope and manage these obstacles, and the faculty members' perceptions of graduate
students academic writing performances and their suggestions to reduce these
difficulties.

During the first phase of the study, the researcher implemented the ESL Graduate
Students Academic Writing Difficulties questionnaire (Appendix A). In the
questionnaire, demographic information was collected from master’s graduate
students. Then they were asked to gauge their academic writing strategies and
behaviors and share their attitudes towards writing assignments in English, the sources
they like to use, and in the final section of the questionnaire, they shared the difficulties
they encounter in their writing.

In the second phase of the study, the researcher emailed 28 potential interview
candidates (who participated in the questionnaire during phase one); however, only 14
candidates approved to participate in the study. The researcher interviewed the
master’s graduate students a) to highlight their academic writing experiences and
challenges and b) to understand the various strategies they use in coping with those
obstacles. The findings from the first phase and the second phase helped in structuring
and understanding the third phase.

In the third and the final phase, the researcher investigated a convenience sample
of faculty members via an open-ended questionnaire. The purpose of the open-ended
questionnaire was to explore the faculty members' perspectives of what they think is
problematic in their students’ academic writing at the master’s level. Also, it aimed to
understand to which degree they were content with their students' academic writing

33
and their suggestions to reduce the difficulties that the master’s graduate students
experience in academic writing.

Results from the study are presented in two sections: quantitative findings and
qualitative findings. The quantitative data included the results from the ESL Graduate
Students Academic Writing Difficulties Questionnaire (Section 4.2). The qualitative
data included the results from the EFL Graduate Students Semi-Structured Interviews
(Section 4.3) and the qualitative data from the Open-Ended Questionnaire with faculty
members (Section 4.4).

B. Quantitative Findings

This section aimed at discussing quantitative data collected during the study
through the ESL Graduate Students Academic Writing Difficulties questionnaire with
the master’s graduate students. The researcher aimed to present and discuss the
findings based on the order of the sections and the subsections of the questionnaire.

1. Findings of Students' Writing Strategies and Behaviors

Table 4 presents the findings of 12 writing strategies and behaviors that the
master’s graduate students used in their academic writing.

Table 4. Graduate Students' Writing Strategies and Behaviors

Always Usually Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Items
F % F % F % F % F % F %
1. I write for pleasure in English in my 3 10.7 3 10.7 6 21.4 8 28.6 5 17.9 3 10.7
free time.
2. I go back to check carefully the 14 50.0 5 17.9 3 10.7 5 17.9 1 3.6 0 00.0
assignment requirements and
instructions.
3. I ask my teacher about the points I am 9 32.1 9 32.1 4 14.3 3 10.7 3 10.7 0 00.0
not sure about, or I need help with.
4. I discuss what I am going to write with 5 17.9 7 25.0 725.0 7 25.0 0 00.0 2 7.1
other students.
5. I brainstorm and write down ideas 15 53.6 11 39.3 2 7.1 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0
about the topic.
6. I make an outline including the main 12 42.9 12 42.9 3 10.7 1 3.6 0 00.0 0 00.0
points of my assignment.
7. I go back to my writing to revise the 14 50.0 11 39.9 2 7.1 0 00.0 1 3.6 0 00.0
content and make my ideas clearer.
8. I go back to my writing to edit the 18 64.3 5 17.9 2 7.1 2 7.1 0 00.0 1 3.6
grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and
punctuation.

34
Table 4 (Cont.). Graduate Students' Writing Strategies and Behaviors

Always Usually Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Items
F % F % F % F % F % F %
9. In my assignments, in general, I pay 0 00.0 4 14.3 725.0 10 35.7 6 21.4 1 3.6
more attention to the language (e.g.,
spelling, grammar, vocabulary) than to
the content (e.g. ideas, organization).
10. I pay more attention to the content 7 25.0 11 39.3 4 14.3 2 7.1 3 10.7 1 3.6
(e.g., ideas, organization) than the
language (e.g. spelling, grammar,
vocabulary).
11. I give almost equal attention to both 12 42.9 6 21.4 4 4.3 3 10.7 3 10.7 0 00.0
the language (e.g. spelling, grammar,
vocabulary) and the content (e.g. ideas,
organization).
12. I discuss my work with other students 3 10.7 9 32.1 2 7.1 5 17.9 8 28.6 1 3.6
to get feedback on how I can improve it.

A= Always U= Usually O= Often S= Sometimes R = Rarely N = Never F = frequency % =

percentage

Item 1 in Table 4 shows that three students (10.7%) stated they always write for
pleasure in their free time, another three participants (10.7%) said they usually write
during their free time whereas, six students (21.4%) mentioned they often write during
their free time. Eight participants (28.6%) said they sometimes write for pleasure
during their free time. Five participants (17.9%) reported they rarely write whereas,
three participants (10.7%) never liked to write for pleasure during their free time. In
total, 89.3% of participants study stated that they write for pleasure in their free time.
This finding indicates that the students are practitioners of writing skills, aware of the
essential nature of writing and the challenges that might impose.

In Item 2, half of the students (50%) declared that they always check the
requirements and instructions of their assignment; five students (17.9%) stated that
they usually check back the requirements and assignment instructions; whereas, three
other students (10.7%) often check back the assignments' instructions and
requirements. While five students (17.9%) declared that they sometimes check their
task instructions carefully, only one student (3.6%) rarely checks the assignment
requirement. The second item showed that 14 of the students (50%) are attentive to
assignment requirements. This shows that the participants pay attention to the
assignment requirements and instructions to attain their writing tasks.

The responses given for Item 3 showed that nine participants (32.1%) always
rely on teachers for assistance and guidance whereas, nine participants (32.1%) usually
reach out to teachers and ask for help and guidance. However, four students (14.3%)

35
often sought teachers' help, three students (10.7%) sometimes asked their teachers for
help, and finally, three students (10.7%) rarely did ask for help and guidance from
teachers. The findings showed that all participants seem to depend on their supervisors
for help and directions on their writing.

In Item 4, five students (17.9%) assured they always share with their peers their
writing plans, seven students (25%) usually discussed their writing plans with other
students, and seven students (25%) often talked about their writing plans with other
students. Another seven students (25%) stated that they sometimes tend to discuss
what they are about to write altogether. However, only two participants (7.1%) showed
no interest and never discussed their writing with other students. That suggests that
(42.9%) of the graduate students feel the significant influence of their peers on their
writing. Thus, they share their writing plans with their peers to improve their writing.

Item 5 showed that 15 students, the majority of the participants (53.6%),

affirmed that they always brainstorm ideas before writing, and 11 students (39.3%)
stated that they usually brainstorm ideas about their writing topic. Finally, two students
(7.1%) said they often brainstorm ideas related to their writing topic of interest. This
explains the essential role of brainstorming in developing writing among students and
how planning ahead of time makes the writing process easier to follow for the study
participants.

The responses from Item 6 yielded that 12 participants (42.9%) always outline
their assignments' main points, and an equal number of the participants to the latter
(42.9%) stated that they usually plan their writing. Only three participants (10.7%)
said they often outline the main points of their assignment. This explains the significant
role of drawing an outline pre-writing, for it helps the study participants brainstorm,
construct, and organize their ideas before writing.

The results from Item 7 indicated that 14 students (50%), half the study
population, said they constantly revise their assignments and clarify their ideas, while
11 students (39.9%) declared that they usually do so. However, two students (7.1%)
shared that they often revise the content of their writing tasks to make it more coherent,
and only one student (3.6%) rarely revised the content of their writing. These findings
indicate that the students pay attention to editing and revising their academic writing

36
products. Thus, they recognize the significant role that proofreading contributes to
their writing improvement.

While the responses from Item 8 showed that the majority of the participants
(64.3%) always edit their grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation in their
writing tasks, five students (17.9%) said they revise their writing from grammar,
vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation errors. Two students (7.1%) shared that they
often refine their writing assignments from grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and
punctuation errors. However, two students (7.1%) declared that they sometimes go
back to their writing assignments and check their grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and
punctuation, and only one student (3.6%) never did. This strategy was the most
frequently used among graduate students where they showed a tendency towards
editing problems on the language level. This particular finding indicates the
participants' awareness of the importance of one of the leading writing foundations.

In Item 9, four participants (14.3%) shared they usually pay more attention to
written assignments' language over the content; however, seven students (25%) stated
they often prefer to focus on language. Another ten students (35.7%) said that they
sometimes pay more attention to the language of their writing than to the content, six
students (21.4%) rarely paid attention to the language, and only one student (3.6%)
never did pay attention to the language of their assignment over the content. This
strategy was the least frequently used in the study. The graduate students preferred
paying attention to the assignment content over the language.

However, for Item 10, seven respondents (25%) stated that they consider the
content of their writing assignments over the language, 11 students (39.3%) usually
chose content over language, and four students (14.3%) more often took into
consideration the assignment content over the language. Also, two students (7.1%)
said they sometimes consider the assignment content over the language, whereas three
participants (10.7%) rarely paid attention to the content of the assignment, and one
student (3.6%) only paid attention to assignment content over language. The findings
suggest that the participants in the study pay more attention to the assignment content
of their writing than they pay attention to the errors in the written language.

37
 In Item 11, 12 students (42.9%) stated they always give almost equal
consideration to language and content, six students (21.4%) said they usually pay
balanced attention to language and content in writing tasks. Four students (14.3%)
stated they often pay equal attention to language and content, while three students
(10.7%) declared that they sometimes give almost equal attention to both language and
content. Three students (10.7%) said they rarely do keep a balance between language
and content. This shows that the graduate students understand the significance of
communicating their voice to the readers; by using accurate language (i.e., spelling,
grammar, vocabulary) and clear and organized ideas (i.e., content). In other words, to
attain writing tasks, the students believe that both the language and the content of the
writing task are equally important.

In Item 12, three students (10.7%) always discussed their writing with their peers
to elicit feedback, nine students (32.1%) usually discussed their academic writing with
other students to improve their writing via peer feedback. Two students (7.1%) stated
they often reach out for feedback from their peers, five students (17.9%) said they
sometimes discussed their writing with other students for feedback to improve their
writing, and eight students (28.6%) rarely did discuss their writing tasks with students.
However, one student (3.6%) never did discuss their work with other students. The
strategy findings suggest the predominant role peers play in providing feedback to
each other to develop and improve their academic writing.

Table 5. The Most and the Least Frequent Writing Strategies and Behaviors

Items F %
8. I go back to my writing to edit the grammar, vocabulary,
18 64.3
spelling, and punctuation.
5. I brainstorm and write down ideas about the topic. 15 53.6
2. I go back to check carefully the assignment requirements and
14 50.0
instructions.
7. I go back to my writing to revise the content and make my
14 50.0
ideas clearer.
9. In my assignments, in general, I pay more attention to the
language (e.g., spelling, grammar, vocabulary) than to the 0 00.0
content (e.g., ideas, organization).

Table 5 presents a list of the most and the least frequent writing strategies and
behaviors the graduate students stated they depend on in academic writing. Items 8, 5,
2, and 7 present the most frequently used strategies among the study participants. Item
9 was the least strategy the graduate students used in their writing with zero (0.00%).
More than half of the participants (n=18) showed an aptness to edit errors on the

38
sentence level, as shown in the responses given to Item 8 (64.3%). Brainstorming is
significant in preparing students to write; therefore, it was the primary strategy among
the graduate students in this study to prepare themselves for writing, as shown in the
responses given to Item 5 (n=15, or 53.6%). Item 2 illustrated that half of the study
participants (n=14, or 50%) carefully check the instructions and requirements of their
assignments; whereas, Item 7 (n=14, or 50%) of the study participants pay attention to
the study content and make the required corrections as needed. However, the least
strategy that students used was Item 9 (none), where the participants stated that they
are not in favor of paying attention to the language but alternately pay more attention
to the content of assignments.

2. Findings of Graduate Students' Attitudes Towards Writing Assignments and

Sources Used in Academic Writing

This subsection presents two main questions on the graduate students’ attitudes
towards academic writing assignments and the sources that they use in academic
writing, as shown in Table 6 The first question aimed at exploring the students’
perceptions towards writing assignments in the English language, whereas the second
question aimed at examining which resources (i.e., books, journals) the students use in
their assignments.

Table 6. Participants Attitudes Towards Writing Assignments and Sources Used in

Academic Writing

Variable F %
1. In general, you find writing assignments in English:
Easy 15 53.6%
Difficult 2 7.1%
Neither difficult nor easy 11 39.3%
2. The reference(s) you mostly use:
Books 0 00.0%
Journals 6 21.4%
Both 24 85.7%

Table 6 presents the participants' attitudes towards the writing assignments in

English and the sources they like to use when writing academically. In the first
question, 15 students (53.6%) stated that they find writing assignments in English easy,
two students (7.1%) declared that they find academic writing difficult, whereas 11
students (39.3%) said they find academic writing assignments neither difficult nor

39
easy. While in the second question, the graduate students were asked to report the
references they use in academic writing. Six students (21.4%) stated that they prefer
using journals, while 24 students (85.7%) stated that they favor combining books and
journals. That indicates that most study participants (53.6%) find writing assignments
in English easy to accomplish. Also, it became clear that most students (85.7%) use a
combination of journals and books to support their academic writing.

3. Findings of Students’ Writing Weaknesses and Difficulties in Academic

Writing

This subsection presents the graduate students’ weaknesses and difficulties in

academic writing assignments. There are six difficulties and weaknesses that graduate
students faced in academic writing. Table 7 illustrates the weaknesses and the
difficulties that the graduate students reported struggle with when writing
academically at the graduate level.

Table 7. Participants Weaknesses and Difficulties in Academic Writing Assignments

Variable F %
Paraphrasing 8 28.6%
Language use 4 14.3%
Expressing own voice 8 28.6%
Referencing & citation 12 42.9%
Coherence & cohesion 7 25.0%
Other 2 7.1%

Table 7 presents the difficulties and the weaknesses that graduate students face
in their academic writing. Table 4.5. shows that eight participants (28.6%) struggled
with paraphrasing, four students (14.3%) face difficulties in putting the language into
use whereas, eight students (28.6%) declared that they have trouble expressing their
voice in writing. However, 12 students (42.9%) find referencing and citation
problematic, seven students (25%) struggle with coherence and cohesion, and finally,
two students (7.1%) stated that they face other problems such as anxiety and
vocabulary. As seen in Table 7, we can classify graduate students’ difficulties and
weaknesses in academic writing from the most problematic to the least, namely:
referencing & citation, expressing their voice, paraphrasing, coherence & cohesion,
language use, and vocabulary.

40
C. Qualitative Findings from The Semi-Structured Interviews

The data analysis collected from the semi-structured interviews followed

theoretical thematic analysis at the latent level in which the research questions drove
by the analysis, the focus of the analysts, and the analysis of the data goes beyond the
semantic surface content of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The rationale beyond
using this form of theoretical TA is that the researcher is concerned with addressing
specific research questions and analyzed the collected data with this in mind.
Therefore, the researcher used open coding. That meant that the research has not
previously arranged a set of codes but developed and modified the codes as the study
advanced.

1. Analysis of Qualitative Findings

The researcher transcribed the interviews verbatim after uploading them to

MAXQDA software. Then the researcher read the written transcriptions three times to
gain familiarity with the data. The researcher returned the transcribed data to some
participants (upon their requests) to review them and ensure validity (Saldana, 2015)
or correct any factual errors. Upon receiving the transcriptions’ validity approval from
the participants, the researcher began the coding process.

The researcher depended on the semi-structured questions as the basis of the

coding and analysis of the data. On the notion of what makes a theme, Braun and
Clarke (2006; 2013) state that there are no rules for a theme. However, a theme is
characterized by its significance. The first step of the analysis was to read the
transcripts, and the researcher took notes during this stage. In the second step, the
researcher generated initial codes. The researcher read each transcript on its own, and
then new codes have emerged. Throughout this stage, new codes were added, and the
researcher modified the existing codes. The researcher included an extract of codes in
the margins (Appendix H). By the time the researcher finished this stage, a total
number of 720 codes were allocated. The third stage of thematic analysis was to search
for preliminary themes. In this stage, the researcher examined any overlapping issues
between the codes and the initial themes. At the end of the stage, the researcher
organized the codes into broader themes that answered the research questions. In the
fourth step, the researcher reviewed and modified the preliminary themes and the
subthemes, keeping the research questions in mind. In the fifth step, the refinement of

41
the themes took place, and the subthemes were completed. The final step was to write
up the last report that is presented below.

2. Presentation of the Qualitative Findings

This section describes the qualitative data findings collected throughout the
semi-structured interviews with the master’s graduate students (Appendix B). All the
transcribed interviews were presented verbatim to ensure the authenticity of the data.
When referring to the information gained from the semi-structured interviews,
pseudonyms of the interview participants were used. Six themes were identified, with
a total of 28 sub-themes, as presented in Table 4. 6. The six main themes were
“academic writing as the main obstacle,” “influences on the writing process,”
“socioeconomic problems,” “supervisors’ relationship,” “coping with academic
writing problems,” and “attitudes and recommendations.”

Table 8. Summary of Themes and Subthemes from Semi-Structured Interviews

Themes
Academic writing as the main
obstacle
Influences on the writing process
Socioeconomic problems
Supervisors’ relationship
Coping with academic writing
problems
Attitudes and recommendations
Subthemes
Lack of academic writing practices
Misunderstanding the nature of academic writing
Lack of academic writing guidance
Choosing a topic
Citation styles
Difficulties writing-up research
Difficulties in data analysis
Academic vocabulary
Grammar concerns
Language use
Expressing own voice
Paraphrasing
Stress and anxiety
Time consumption
Frustration
Busy life
Lack of mobility
Lack of motivation
Lack of communication with supervisors
Lack of formative feedback
Meeting expectations
Reading
Efficient communication with peers/supervisors
Social platforms
Time management
Writing drafts
Attitudes towards academic writing
Recommendations and suggestions

42
 In this section, the researcher aims at presenting and defining each theme and
subsequent theme as in Table 8.

a. Academic writing as the main obstacle

The findings showed that the master’s graduate students face several types of
challenges in their academic writing. The great majority of these problems are related
to the complexity that evolves the demands and fundamentals structure of academic
writing, due to, mainly, the lack of scholarly writing practices, either in terms of
academic courses or practical writing (e.g., essays, research proposals, research grants,
literature review, abstracts, term papers, prospectus). Overall, the researcher identified
seven subthemes counted as the difficulties the students struggle with during their
academic writing. These difficulties include "lack of academic writing practices,"
"misunderstanding the nature of academic writing," "lack of academic writing
guidance," "citation styles," "choosing a topic," "difficulty writing-up research," and
"difficulties in data analysis." Each of these difficulties is discussed below.

Lack of academic writing practices. One of the prime challenges at the master’s
graduate level is the lack of scholarly writing practices at English-medium university
(Morrison & Evans, 2018). There are many purposes for academic writing at the
master’s graduate level. To mention some, it should help students be good academic
writers and to indulge them in the academic community after graduation. The writing
phase is challenging and unfolds many painful challenges to students, especially with
the lack of academic writing practices that hinder students' writing process (Murray,
2001). In this study, 11 master’s students out of 14 stated feeling unprepared for
academic writing. Among the students' problems is the lack of guidelines on what they
are expected to write due to the lack of application and practices during their study. A
student that is at the stage of preparing their thesis supported this finding as stated in
the following:

"So, if [the school/institution of graduate studies] are lacking in giving us the

courses and the academic training that we need, we will be unable to give, [submit] a
good academic paper" (Interview with Student 1).

While few students (3/14) frustratingly criticized the emphasis on exams and the
courses, leaving them with no adequate practical academic writing skills:

43
 "[…] to expect from [a] student to write a thesis and [the institution] give him
only theoretical information without any application in real life on about how to write
an academic writing" (Interview with Student 2).

The students feel that there is no adequate emphasis on academic writing

training, and their program focus is mostly based on courses and exams. Thus, the
students struggle in their academic writing with the lack of academic writing practices
in their study.

Misunderstanding the nature of academic writing. The master’s graduate

students were asked a set of questions to understand their perceptions of the nature of
academic writing. Some of these questions were Do you like writing? How do you feel
about your academic writing? If you were to choose, would you like to take academic
writing courses? An ideal academic writing course, what would it be about?

[Graduate] students' abilities to present their ideas and thoughts in academic

writing have an indispensable role in succeeding academically (Applebee, 1994).
When the researcher asked the students about their writing practices, their difficulties,
and whether they find academic writing intricate, almost half of the participants (8/14)
misunderstood the nature of academic writing at the master’s level. The
misunderstandings varied; for instance, a student was convinced that without a "load"
of vocabulary, their academic writing would not be as good as when they do. An
example as in the following:

"[If] you are a good writer, you are supposed to have... to be loaded with lots of
vocabs because vocabs can work fine" (Interview with Student 3).

Another common problem among the participants was their undifferentiation

between the nature of academic writing and general or business writing. This student
felt that academic writing was similar to business writing (e.g., real estate
advertisements, email); he stated:

"I have been working in [the] English content creation for two years, so I do not
have to take any course because it was part of my … the experience of my job. I created
few articles for my company in terms of economy, and real estate things in Turkey"
(Interview with Student 2).

44
 Another student misunderstood academic writing at the master’s level as in her
ability to write nonacademic work, “It was my dream when I was young to write some
novels” (Interview with Student 4).

Academic writers at the graduate level are expected to follow a specific set of
demands in their writing. However, some students hold a false perception of academic
writing at the master’s level. Misunderstanding the nature of academic writing can be
attributed to various factors, such as the lack of practice, lack of English proficiency,
or lack of consciousness at the time of the interview. Also, it shows the students' lack
of knowledge in research writing since some confused it with business writing (e.g.,
email, real estate articles) or non-academical writing (e.g., fictional novels).

Lack of academic writing guidance. Boice (1987) believes that unproductive

writers should be guided and supported to improve and advance their academic writing
skills and become productive writers. However, the shortage of direction and guidance
in scholastic writing practices drives students to frequently rely solely on their
supervisors and advisors to support and guide them in their writing process and
development (Tremblay-Wragg et al., 2021). Nevertheless, some students in this study
stressed feelings of inadequacy of guidance while writing during their program of
study or their writing practices (e.g., thesis writing, research article). In the current
study, half of the study participants (7/14) shared feelings of lack of practical guidance.
For instance, some of those students explained the shortage of guidance that they
experienced or thought that it should aid them to write a well academic article that is
mandatory for graduation defense, saying:

"What should I do to publish [the research article]? I do not know how to write
an article. For example, they [supervisors and professors] should tell us what an article
consist[s] of. What is an article? There is no such a thing, that is the problem [I] face"
(Interview with Student 2).

"Most of [the problems are] related to the structures that I need to follow. Like I
have no idea, really, like what structure I need to follow I need to write in any paper,
Ummm, I am asked to do. How many parts? How many paragraphs? What ideas should
I contain in the paper? Like what should I, like, proceed in this paper? " (Interview
with Student 5).

45
 Another student who is still trying to figure out his thesis topic and feels he is
falling behind with no actual support and guidance said:

"We [students] do not know how to start [writing], they do not know how to find
the topic, they do not know whatever they are going to write is related, they do not
find the necessary help, they do not find the necessary assistance, they do not get the
correct feedback, they do not [receive] elaborated assistance" (Interview with Student
6).

From the responses above, we can understand that the master’s students relied,
for the most part, on their supervisors for guidance on their academic writing, the
editing of their academic writing, the feedback, and the publishing process instructions
of their research writing. However, the guidance they received, as students claimed,
was not enough of help. Such obstacles hinder students' academic writing and cause a
delay in their writing and motivate them less to write.

Citation styles. The term citation refers to showing the source of a specific text
in the body of the research (Neville, 2012). The term referencing refers to the practice
of "acknowledging in an academic text the intellectual work of others" (Neville, 2012,
p. 1). Understanding the differences between referencing and citation is significant.
That is because they can help us separate one's thoughts and ideas from other scholars.
Therefore, it would save students’ from falling into plagiarism. Also, graduate students
are expected to present a critical approach when writing academically. That includes
an academic presentation of their ideas, analysis to support their argument, and
referencing other studies that support their claims. In this study, (9/14) of the students
shared various problems that they face linked to 1) citation styles (APA, MLA,
Chicago), 2) getting access to references. In the former case, the students shared
obstacles in-text citation, direct and in-direct quoting. However, the majority of the
students (10/14) reported feelings of anxiety and frustration towards the lack of access
to materials online. In the words of one of the students describing her experience in
finding related materials that support her writing:

"It was very hard for me to find references and still till now, I feel that my
references are way less than it should be, but I just cannot find [adequate references]"
(Interview with Student 1).

46
 Another student who was writing a research proposal encountered many
challenges in getting access to references:

"Out of 20 research prints or texts or [research] papers, I was able to access to

only 8 of them. The rest of that which is 8 to 9 papers out of my 20 research papers, I
could not access them at all" (Interview with Student 6).

Regardless of the numerous online resources available for students, they still
commit frequent and repetitive errors in citation styles. In the era of technological
advances, students can access myriad online sources like citation generators, web open
access resources, and various tools that available online for students. However,
instructors more often take for granted that students can put citation styles into use
(Mandernach et al., 2016). Nevertheless, this seemingly straightforward task for some
students turns into a very frustrating process with no end (Van Note Chism &
Weerakoon, 2012).

Choosing a topic. An extensive review of the literature indicated a dearth in

investigating the nature of difficulties students encounter in formulating a topic to
research and write about (Ameen et al., 2018). Therefore, the formulation of a research
topic is one of the foundations of the graduate level where students should choose an
appropriate research topic with "immense" importance not only to the researcher but
also to the field of their study (Ameen et al., 2018, p. 592). In the current study, half
of the students (7/14) struggled with choosing a topic in their writing and found it
troublesome. For instance, a student chose a random topic without thinking about the
consequences and the responsibilities that he must undertake into account; he said:

"I was oblig[ated] to change my thesis [topic] because I found myself, I cannot
get on because I-I-I from the very beginning, I just chose a topic like that in order just
to... I want to finish, that is all" (Interview with Student 3).

Another student struggled in finding a topic for her thesis because of her
inadequacy of ideas and knowledge about scholarly writing:

"The main problem was the lack of ideas. For example, I could not understand
what it is about [the thesis]? What do they want me to write [about]? And maybe I do
not have any information about that [topic]" (Interview with Student 7).

47
 Another student struggled in choosing a topic that is original that is up-to-date,
and innovative. He shared three main factors that frame the "originality" of the
research topic, they are:

"Number one; something that I think I would be interested in, number two:
something that I think has future, that people will look up in the future and use it as an
academic source, or number three: is it related to the world we are currently living in"
(Interview with Student 6).

Based on the students' responses, we understood that choosing a research topic

in general and particularly a thesis topic is one of the most significant decisions that
the students need to make. All the interviewed students (14/14) agreed that having an
interest in the research topic area is the most significant aspect of attaining the writing
goal. Despite the difficulties that the students faced in choosing a topic for their
research writing tasks, they stated that the more they read, the better they think about
related research topics.

Difficulty writing up research. In this study, the students shared various

obstacles related to the writing sections of their academic assignments, namely:
introduction, literature review, and methods section.

The introduction of any research is necessary because it aspires, stimulates the

reader, catches their attention, and indulges them in what to come (Wcg, 2008).
However, there is an ambiguity that involves what students should write in the
introduction section. Therefore, students intermittently find this section frustrating to
write since almost half of the interviewed students (8/14) expressed difficulties in
writing up the introduction of their academic papers. The interviewed students shared
various problems interconnected to this section. For example, some of those students
struggled in introducing their arguments; they were not aware of the elements of the
introduction chapter, how to structure it, and what to avoid. A student in the study
shared his experience writing the introduction section in his dissertation:

"I had a problem with what kind of paragraphs I have to write as an introduction.
[…] [Writing] the introductory chapter… because I did not know how to start, where
to start I mean. It was so hard" (Interview with Student 2).

48
 The literature review is of great significance in research writing that is the first
impression of the literature review reflects the quality of the written work (Akindele,
2008, as cited in Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020). However, writing the literature review
is twisting, and students always struggle in writing an excellent literature review
(Randolph, 2009) that reflects and raises awareness and understanding of the proposed
topic and the previous theories and methodologies addressed in the research problem
(Mallett, 2004). In this study, six students out of 14 found writing the literature review
very complicated and confusing. In the words of one of the students who struggled in
the review of literature structure writing:

"[…] the literature review, the most I mean... I mean the chapter that is very...
how can I say... there is a word... exhausting" (Interview with Student 2).

Some students felt that writing the literature review was overwhelming because
they "have" to include all the previous theories carried out in their research area. For
instance:

"Because [I] have to cover all the theories and the previous researches done in
[my]— in the area [I am] writing [about], it is not about what [I am] going to talk
about, it is everything in previous researches and the theories, and why [I] chose these
theories, that is it" (Interview with Student 2).

The methods section, (5/14) of the master’s students expressed obstacles in

writing up this section throughout their academic writing practices. The challenges in
this section were miscellaneous: from difficulties in writing the content, forming the
structure of the chapter to data collection, sampling, data analysis via SPSS, and the
adaption and replication of previous research studies. For instance, when a student was
asked whether she finds writing any section hard to manage or whether it proposes
difficulties, she said:

"Because I have not decided yet, um… because I have to collect the data… then
decide to how to write my methodology" (Interview with Student 7).

Another student felt that writing a mixed-methods study is hard to process:

"I can easily say that I am clueless, especially in regard of writing quantitative
research or mixed research. I can only answer them what it is, but how [to] do [I] put
that on word, how do [I] even begin to think about whether [my] paper is going to be

49
mixed or not, quantitative or qualitative or not, and if it belongs to one of them, which
is will?" (Interview with Student 6).

Difficulties in data analysis. There were two fundamental problems that eight
students out of 14 shared related to data analysis throughout the study: 1) running
analysis and 2) using appropriate software analysis. In the first case, the students felt
that they received less guidance or no practical knowledge to collect the data and
interpret it. That includes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods data. For
instance, on the use of qualitative analysis, two students expressed concerns:

"I had to use content-based... analysis and I could not [use it]. I am not very
skilled in doing that, and it takes time" (Interview with Student 2).

"I know I am going to write [a] portion of qualitative data. I have no idea how to
write it" (Interview with Student 6).

While the second problem was related to using appropriate data analysis
software. The technological advances in research have resulted in a broad spectrum of
tools and software to support the researchers and the research lifecycle (Duca &
Metzler, 2019). However, students face many obstacles that leave them restless when
writing academically. Metzler et al. (2016) believe that the rapid changes of these
software and tools are barriers to teaching students and keeping them up to date. In the
light of the previous study, we can understand some of the difficulties of using such
tools. Furthermore, the students believe not receiving practical training during their
program of study is yet another factor that plays a role in their poor skills of using such
software. For example, two students commented on how complicated using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (henceforth, SPSS), he said:

"I used SPSS to analyze [my data]. No, I do not know [how to use it]. I… I… I
got help from someone. It is hard actually. They did not teach us about it" (Interview
with Student 2).

"To use programs as SPSS and such … how to use them, how to enter the raw
data, to process data, how to implement that on word, how to put out the graphs, how
are they going to be read, and that is [a] problem that I can easily say that we did not
receive any sort of education or course on this" (Interview with Student 6).

50
 • Summary of the First Theme

In the first theme, the researcher projected the main seven academic writing
obstacles that master’s graduate students encountered as they are asked and started to
write academically. Despite the students' attempts to attain their writing tasks, they fail
in understanding the nature of writing at the master’s level. However, their writing
swings not further away from the undergraduate students' writing. In other words, it
lacks synthesis of sources, merely summarizing instead of analyzing the data and
adding nothing to the literature of their topic of study. Also, the students struggled with
finding appropriate research topics for their writing tasks. The other mentioned
problems are tied firmly to the theme of writing the introduction, literature review, and
method sections. Thus, other difficulties emerged among the students as the lack of
understanding analysis in research methods and ambiguity in data analysis.

b. Influences on the writing process

The second theme focused on the emerging difficulties that the students
struggled with within their writing process. The researcher reported five subthemes
from the students' answers: vocabulary, grammar usage, language use, expressing their
own voice, and paraphrasing.

Vocabulary. Bush et al. (1996) believe that the utilization of accurately

appropriate academic vocabulary in graduate-level writing is compelling. Most
graduate students consistently encounter problems in academic vocabulary (Casanave
& Hubbard, 1992). In this study, almost half of the interviewed students (6/14)
mentioned difficulties with academic vocabulary. The students shared various
problems they face with academic vocabulary. For instance, a participant complained
about using repetitive words in his writing and consequently looked for synonyms,
which were not always available:

"Choosing vocabs, synonyms [are] not that easy one. Learning vocabulary is a
very good thing and supporter, helper thing when you try to write about something
actually. Vocabs can save you, by the way, because without vocabs, just like... let us
say... a-a-a boat without ropes. You cannot keep on" (Interview with Student 3).

While another student struggled not only with the type of vocabulary he wanted
to include in his writing but also on the aptness of the chosen vocabulary, using third-
person narrator, he said:

51
 "So, [one] cannot use too complex words, … cannot use too easy understandable
words because the things [one] … trying to explain are not that easy … use pinpoint
vocabulary for that" (Interview with Student 6).

This particular finding suggests that the students hold a misconception of

academic writing nature, where one of the students believes that knowing vocabulary
is the ultimate goal to write academically. Nevertheless, this is quite common among
L2 English learners. The findings of Dong (1998) suggest a similar misunderstanding
where the students thought that vocabulary choice was essential to express their views
and ideas in writing.

Grammar concerns. Producing an academic writing text requires a reasonable

degree of grammatical accuracy, suggest Celce-Murcia, (1991, as cited in Hinkel,
2013). Therefore, the construction of well grammar competence in academic writing
is essential (Hinkel, 2013). In the current study, five students out of 14 grappled with
grammar, for instance:

"And [another] problem [is] grammatical mistake. I have [a] grammatical

mistake at writing" (Interview with Student 7).

Language use. Students are expected to use formal language that is coherent and
cohesive when they write academically at the graduate level. They are expected to pay
great attention to the structure and the language they use. In this study, half of the
interviewed students (7/14) reported having problems in language use and their
awareness of its significance. The two main obstacles that the students shared were
related to a) using formal language and b) building a good structure. For instance, some
students reported having difficulties in outlining their writing; therefore, that hindered
their writing and made it more complicated. In the words of one of the students, she
stated, “I mean the most challenging thing in my writing career is putting the ideas in
order. I could not decide on which one should be first and which one should be second,
and I could never decide on the things to put them in a[n] order” (Interview with
Student 8).

Expressing own voice. Academic writing helps students find their own voice and
share their ideas and thoughts like experts in their fields of study. The findings of the
interviews with the master’s students indicated that five students out of 14 have
problems expressing their own voice when they write academically during their

52
master’s program. For instance, one of the students reported that she finds it hard to
write up research, using a third-person narrator rather than I as in the first-person
narrator, she stated:

“We cannot say I, and even though you wanna say I and my experience tells me
like my experience in the classroom is difficult to limit yourself, as I said. I hate that
part. Thesis [is a] personal thing when we think about it. Like we should be able to
share our experiences, we know this, we are new in the area, but we have a voice too.
Everyone [has] different experiences" (Interview with Student 9).

Another student reported feelings of fear to express her own voice that the reader
might not understand her perspectives, she said, “It is very difficult for me to write
something because I am afraid of the second person or the other people can't
understand me, or what I am saying because it's not my native language English”
(Interview with Student 4).

Paraphrasing. Unlike the previous subtheme where students needed to transfer

their thoughts into words, this subtheme addresses the problems that the interviewed
students faced with paraphrasing. Paraphrasing, in the simplest terms, refers to
expressing the words of other writers and scholars in ones’ own words; to achieve
better clarity. In the current study, only four students out of the 14 interviewed students
reported obstacles in paraphrasing the work of other scholars. As one of the students
stated:

"Sometimes I do [face problems with paraphrasing] especially when someone

paraphrases someone, someone paraphrases someone, and someone paraphrases
someone. That is kinda difficult. Because you do not wanna be similar, you do not
wanna go so far. You don't wanna lose the meaning" (Interview with Student 9).

• Summary of Theme Two

Theme two described the influences of academic writing on students' writing

process and the problems that emerged within it. The five subthemes of this theme
showed that lack of academic vocabulary, grammatical inaccuracy, problems in
language use, obstacles in expressing own voice, and paraphrasing were the primary
reasons that ten students out of 14 reported struggling with during their writing. The
problems shared are linked to the size and type of vocabulary, where words synonyms
were the main issues that the students grappled with within their academic writing.

53
The lack of grammar competence has been a problem for few students who struggled
in producing a well-written text that meets the requirements of graduate-level
academic writing. The other challenges were related to using formal academic
language, expressing their own voice in a sense where students struggled to put their
own thoughts into scholarly voice and words, and paraphrasing.

c. Socioeconomic problems

Socioeconomic factors contribute negatively to students' learning and in their

academic writing performance in particular (Chokwe, 2013). In this theme, the
students' responses showed five subthemes that affected their writing severely. These
subthemes are stress and anxiety, time consumption, busy life, frustration, lack of
mobility, and lack of motivation.

Stress and anxiety. The term writing anxiety is explained as a "situational aspect,
which is concerned with feelings of stress along with reactions as excessive
perspiration, palpitation, and negative impressions" (Rabadi & Rabadi, 2020, p.885).
That might include a lack of writing confidence or avoidance of writing (Rabadi &
Rabadi, 2020).

Writing anxiety might correlate positively with some students (Boice & Johnson,
1984; Martinez et al., 2011) or negatively (Bloom, 1981; Onwuegbuzie, 1997;
Martinez et al., 2011). In this study, all the interviewed students (14/14) reported
feelings of anxiety when assigned a writing task, and they intermittently struggled to
write, decided to drop out of the program or delayed their writing. The students shared
various reasons and situations that caused them feelings of anxiety. For instance, one
student shared her feelings of anxiety about the lack of access to references:

“[…] what gives me anxiety actually is the idea that I am… will be unable to
find enough references or how am I supposed to use the article I found online? or how
I am gonna incorporate them in my thesis" (Interview with Student 1).

Another student shared a broader perspective of the problems that make him feel
anxious. Those problems were how to begin writing, choosing a topic, the fear of
inadequacy in writing up research, and whether the content is relative to the research
area or not. Using third-person narrator, he explains these obstacles:

54
 "I feel anxious on first of all, how to start my writing as the beginning, choosing
a topic may be difficult or not, that is another thing, but after you set to your idea, you
have your thoughts, starting the very first line and carrying that on and then seeing
may be that you have written less or maybe you have written too much, is making me
anxious. I do not know whether or not the things I am writing are related or relative or
it is just things that I am giving as an extra unimportant information" (Interview with
Student 6).

Another student anxiety stems from the fact that English is their L2; therefore,
writing in English makes him feel anxious:

"If I am tired and exhausted from [some]thing I am thinking of or... because it is

a second language, it is not my mother tongue. So, if I speak, I would be anxious, even
though I speak the language fluently, I would be anxious because it is not my-my-my
mother tongue, like Arabic. […] So, it is the same in writing, you will not... you cannot
express your ideas freely and write if you are anxious or thinking about something or
tired or whatever" (Interview with Student 2).

The causes of stress and anxiety among the students are varied. Based on their
responses, the causes of stress and anxiety can be grouped into two main categories.
First, students' anxiety and stress are a result of social encounters and economic
obstacles. That, in a way, caused the students problems in following with their writing
or prevented them from writing. Other students' anxiety and stress are language-based.
As stated above, some students felt that L2 writing is, at times, complex, whereas other
students endured that it was the writing itself that causes them stress, globally known
as writing anxiety.

Time consumption. In the current study, ten students out of the 14 interviewed
master’s students reported obstacles related to timing. The students' difficulties were
divided into two major categories: time consumption and time management. In terms
of time consumption, some students time has been consumed while striving to think
about an appropriate thesis topic:

"It took me about two to three months in order to decide on what I am gonna to
write [about]" (Interview with Student 3).

While another student found that most of her time is spent on reading:

55
 "It is just to understand one page, [I] need to spend two hours on it. It is written
in a difficult language, like the construction, the word construction, and the sentence
construction [are] really hard to understand. I was spending hours, and even months
just trying to understand this paragraph mean[ing] or this sentence mean[ing] or this
chapter" (Interview with Student 1).

One student struggled with managing his time. The main problems he faced were
related to spending many hours researching for materials, he said:

"When I am researching for related material online or offline, this costs me time,
and when [I] find that [I] 've found the paper, [I] need time again to read through that
paper to comprehend that which is another way to waste your time… spend your time.
Then, [I] might find out that a minor portion of that paper is related …, or if [I am]
very unlucky, it is totally unrelated […] There is nothing that [I] can take out from that
research paper that [I] have already wasted three days, maybe one week to get through
[a] quote on [a] quote to understand the paper completely" (Interview with Student 6).

As the students stated above, writing scholarly takes time and effort. It takes time
to read, find related materials, think about a research topic, and write up research. All
these stages take time, and the students felt trapped with short periods, as they stated.
That has resulted in obstacles in time management where some students failed to
manage their time wisely. Failure in time management caused difficulties in writing
and slowing of the process. As we can see, time consumption and time management
are interchangeable among master’s graduate students and research writing.

Frustration. The term frustration, per se, is rarely defined in the literature of
higher education studies, and if any, it was mentioned briefly (Sword et al., 2018).
However, we can understand that frustration is a psychological response to an obstacle
between a person and their own goal or task (Eysenck & Keane, 2015). In this research,
half of the interviewed students (7/14) shared several reasons for their frustration. The
frustration stems from the lack of academic writing training, lack of time management,
inadequate formative feedback, among many other problems. For instance, a student
who, at the time of the interview, was still preparing to write his research proposal,
stated:

56
 "What am I going to write about? How am I going to write about [it]? If I am not
going to write about something that I am not interested in, what am I proposed? And
the person who proposes that to me, is he or she proficient in that, to begin with? So,
before we begin and finish the paper, there are a lot of major problems that lays the
start off the paper which takes a psychological, mental, and toll on students" (Interview
with Student 6).

While another student felt frustrated due to the lack of feedback given by her
professor on her academic writing:

"If she [my professor] keeps giving me negative feedback, then it will demolish
my morals and my spirit. Like I do not want to write anymore, this is not my thing, I
cannot do it anymore" (Interview with Student 1).

Frustration among the students in the study was predominant. Some students'
frustration was explicit in expressing themselves and their research concerns and
difficulties whereas, other students shared it with behavior rather than words.

Busy life. Having a busy life is quite common among graduate students
worldwide. The demands that life imposes on students are represented in Offstein et
al., (2004) findings where students were competing time, significant responsibilities,
research writing, and conflicting roles in their lives. Also, students are most likely to
be worrying about their families and earning money to support them and their being.
In this study, almost half of the interviewed students (8/14) had busy lives, and they
had something that kept them away from their writing. This caused setbacks in the
students' academic life and affects their writing negatively. For example, one of the
students said:

"Because I... my time... is a little bit busy, you know. I told you, I work.
Sometimes I just go home about 11[pm] or 12 [am]. Also, I have private teaching after
my job. So, [I] do not have that much time" (Interview with Student 3).

"Sometimes, let us say, maybe... financial issues [were] one of the difficulties,
by the way. Maybe I can give about 10-15% of this, but this also is one of the
difficulties that faced me at that time" (Interview with Student 3).

The graduate students in the study, as their peers all over the world, had a busy
lifestyle. That made them, whether by choice or not, delay their writing or not write at
all.

57
 Lack of mobility. Despite the technological advances, the need to gather data
from the field is persisting. However, due to the covid-19 health risk and repetitive
curfews imposed, educational institutions were closed. Therefore, six out of the 14
interviewed students struggled in collecting data from participants and getting access
to references through the university library. That caused limited data resources and
delays in the students' progress. In the words of some students:

"I had to-to-to-to- to spread my questionnaire for students in a school and schools
were closed" (Interview with Student 2).

"Because I am in quarantine. I could not collect data for my thesis" (Interview

with Student 7).

Besides, the lack of mobility made communication between the students and
their academic supervisors and advisors confusing and occasionally frustrating. The
students' only way to reach out to their academic supervisors and faculty members is
through email, which is not convenient, students complained.

"[…] in [the] covid-19 period right now which is much much more difficult to
get in contact with people, to get in contact with your friends even let alone your
advisors… your academic advisors because they are too busy getting replies and
questions from all sort of places" (Interview with Student 6).

The lack of mobility caused by the COVID-19 has caused tremendous setbacks
in the students writing. The delay in the writing, the lack of collected data, and the lack
of communication channels between the students and their educational mentors and
advisors come at a cost. These setbacks might be recent and new, yet they exhaust
students and make their academic writing experience troublesome.

Lack of motivation. Motivation in language learning settings is significant in the

likelihood of promoting a prosperous learning environment. Rahayu (2021) defines
motivation as “a sense of agency, feelings of control, students' control over learning
activities and their interests in it” (p. 89). Therefore, motivation helps and aspires
students’ goals and directions to write better. In the current study, half of the study
participants (7/14) felt discouraged and lacked the motivation to begin writing or
resume their writing. The lack of motivation stems from social and financial factors
that affected students' lives; however, in two cases, it was both social and academic

58
(e.g., fear of failure or making mistakes, lack of communication, inadequate feedback)
factors. For instance, one of the students stated:

“I almost quit [from the program the] last august. I just wanted to quit. I felt I
could not do it. I felt like, what the hell are you doing? Why would you put yourself in
such a situation? You are not strong enough. You are not qualified enough. Yes, I
questioned myself so hard” (Interview with Student 5).

• Summary of Theme Three

The third theme outlined the social and economic problems that affected the
master’s students writing negatively. The most frequent obstacle among the
interviewed students was the students’ feelings of anxiety because their lives were
stressful and socioeconomic status imposed stressful pressure on their lives that made
them anxious, among many other reasons. The second problem was the time spent on
reading and writing. Students with time management problems, long periods of
reading and writing have had some sense of frustration. Thus, the students abandoned
their writing or delayed it because they failed to keep pace with scholarly writing
demands. Also, the busy lifestyle and the daily encounters and problems that the
master’s graduate students faced led to difficulties in their writing. Also, the pandemic,
closure, and curfews imposed more pressure on the students where most educational
institutions were closed. This problem affected the students in two key ways: first, the
students struggled with the scarcity of the accessed data required for their academic
writing. Second, the students encountered difficulties in communication with their
academic supervisors and advisors, which resulted in problems that affected their
writing. Finally, the students’ lack of motivation to write was frequently problematic
among many of them.

d. Supervisors’ relationship

Three subthemes, lack of communication with faculty members, lack of

formative feedback, and fear of not meeting faculty members’ expectations, are the
obstacles that the students reported during the interviews. Nine students out of the 14
interviewed students in the study stated a lack of sufficient communication with faculty
members’ and supervisors, a lack of formative and corrective feedback, and fear of not
meeting educator’s expectations writing-wise.

59
 Lack of communication with faculty members. A well-built supervisory
relationship is paramount in the likelihood of students' success academically (Halbert,
2015). However, the lack of frequent communication between the students and their
professors and supervisors causes serious trouble for students. In the current study,
almost half of the interviewed students (6/14) described the haphazard nature of their
communication with their supervisors, professors, and advisors. For example, the
students complained:

"She [my supervisor] takes [a] long time to answer. I do not guess she is as ready
as I would like her to be. Like if I send an email regarding my thesis, and I get [an
answer] one month later, I will not be doing any progress on my thesis. So, I am the
one who is getting delayed" (Interview with Student 1).

While another student experienced a broader problem, from his perspective, this
is due to two main factors: 1) teacher educators’ lack of encouragement and 2) lack of
evaluation and assessment in the writing process. He explained:

"Number one: easing the process of getting the students to start their academic
writing, to get them a first push … [but] they fail at that. Number two, their assistant
throughout the academic paper [is] little to none. That is the simplest I can put it: Little
to none" (Interview with Student 6).

The lack of communication channels between the faculty members and their
students might cause significant problems in students writing. Academic writers are
expected to be in frequent communication with their writing and their supervisors and
faculty members to develop their research writing; however, the lack of
communication generates problems in students' writing that the students might not be
able to solve on their own.

Lack of formative feedback. The faculty members feedback is significant to

improve and promote students’ writing. Also, it helps students develop a voice of their
own. Therefore, the lack of formative feedback on students’ writing comes at a cost.
The cost is more problems in students writing, more challenges to face, and less writing
to do. In this study, half of the interviewed students (7/14) experienced obstacles with
the lack of formative feedback. Some of the feedback that the students received was
insufficient or not formative, students complained. In other words, as students
declared, it had no foundation in helping them improve their writing or rewrite and

60
edit their work. Those students shared various problems that were associated with the
lack of formative feedback. For example, a student who claimed to receive merely
almost no feedback stated:

"[…] it is unfair to say yes or no because usually now she did not give me any
feedback [on] my thesis, but usually her answers or her replies would be just like 'one
word'" (Interview with Student 1).

"I did not get positive feedback or negative feedback. The only thing I got was
[that] it was good. So, for me now, I am in the middle. I do not know which side I need
to work on. Somehow, I feel that I need to work on some aspects of my writing, but I
do not know what they are. Nobody explained to me" (Interview with Student 1).

Another student struggled with the usage of analysis software, and when he
sought help from his supervisor, he has been given an unprofessional response and no
feedback:

"But, whenever [I] go to [my] supervisor, he does not explain anything about
how to use the [SPSS] program. He tells [me] to 'pay money and do[es] it'" (Interview
with Student 2).

While another student experienced ineffective evaluation of her written work,

leaving the student in limbo:

"Last semester or the one before it, I led a research paper where we had to write
like mini-thesis, and every time I would go just to ask… like the professor like 'Am I
doing a good job? Is this what you want?' or 'Can you give me any feedback?' the
answer that I would get is like 'no, it is fine, just write.' Like, we all write, but it should
be academic" (Interview with Student 1).

We can understand that the role of feedback in improving students’ writing for
it is lack; students tend to write less or not at all. In some cases, the students expressed
that negative feedback causes them stress and anxiety. These feelings challenge their
desire to write or decide to quit and drop from the program. In either case, the writing
process becomes more complex. A few other students expressed that the type of
feedback they received was summative; however, they expected formative and
corrective feedback that helps them locate their mistakes, correct them, and avoid them
in the future.

61
 Meeting faculty members expectations. In the interviews with the students, six
students out of 14 reported mixed feelings of fear and anxiety that their writing might
not meet their supervisors’ and professors’ expectations. That, in a way, hindered the
students writing and prevented them from moving forward or making noteworthy
progress in their writing. One of the students said, “I am feeling anxious and afraid
[of] making mistakes and whether the other teacher would like my work or not”
(Interview with Student 8).

• Summary of Theme Four

Theme four addressed the challenges that the master’s students encounter with
their faculty members and supervisors, the lack of formative feedback, and fear of not
meeting faculty members’ expectations. Some of the interviewed master’s students
(6/14) had problems with the lack of communication channels between them and their
supervisors, the type of feedback given on their assignments, and their expectations
writing-wise. Therefore, due to the previously discussed challenges, the students’
writings were affected negatively, leaving them in a labyrinth.

e. Coping with academic writing challenges

This theme concentrated on the students' coping strategies to minimize the

difficulties they face in academic writing. The subthemes are reading, usage of social
platforms, efficient communication with someone (e.g., peers, family members,
supervisors), time management, and writing drafts.

Reading. The influence of reading on writing is broad, and it has a substantial

impact on students' writing because it develops learners' abilities to write (Brown,
1981). It also inspires them to discover topics related to their research problems. All
the interview participants (14/14) shared that reading is a dominant strategy for
successful writing. For example:

"You [as a student] have to read in order to-to write something, or to write about
something; you have to read about that thing, by the way. Because in order to get an
idea about that topic, this subject, what are you gonna to write about something. Okay,
so I try to collect some other sources related to my subject in order to get an idea, to
give an idea about this subject" (Interview with Student 3).

62
 "[Another] thing that I do is look for papers but short and comprehensible papers
because the first paper you look at should give you the idea on how to write it. Look
at the materials inside, not what it said in the paper, how it is written, to get you through
the first best instruction, then I seek papers that close to my topic, then I read some of
it" (Interview with Student 6).

Academic reading is the most used strategy among the participants in the study.
Critical reading of research helps students in many ways. First of all, it guides them to
write better assignments and research papers. Second, it helps them understand better
the academic writing style and inspires them to write about topics they are interested
in and contribute to the literature of their research area. Third, it helps students
understand the writing process. Also, it aids them in communicating their voices better
when they read materials that fit their research area.

Efficient communication with someone. According to the participants'

experiences, they had followed several strategies for coping with their writing
difficulties. A persuasive approach for dealing with writing challenges is to set these
problems aside and negative mood by efficient communication with friends, family
members, or someone with whom they have something in common or can listen to
them and eventually give a piece of advice. All the interviewed students (14/14)
followed this strategy to reduce the problems they faced in their writing, for example:

"I personally look for… first of all for friends or relatives or people that I know
who seemed to be having [a] much smoother process in writing, or they seem good at
writing itself" (Interview with Student 6).

Another interesting point that half of the interviewed students (7/14) shared was
that they built strong communication channels with their supervisors or faculty
members, who gave support, guidance, guidelines, and formative feedback on students
writing and research topics, For instance:

“In [the] research methods course, I did receive some feedback, and it was very
helpful. She [the professor] was so good about it, and she motivated me about my
topic" (Interview with Student 10).

“When I first start[ed] writing my thesis, some of my teachers refused my topic,

but my supervisor told me it is a good topic. [...] If you want to write about this topic,
you will. You do not have. no one can stop you. He encouraged me, and he gave me

63
very -- he motivated me. I was going to change my topic, but he encouraged [me], and
his advice was not to change the topic" (Interview with Student 8).

Human relationships in research are very significant. In this study, all the
students used them wisely. Having somebody to talk to about their research to
brainstorm ideas and thoughts to solve, inspire, ease the writing process. After all,
academic writing is an emotional process, and being able to communicate feelings to
someone they trust, the students could minimize the difficulties they face in their
research writing, even temporarily.

Social platforms. Social activities are great to take the stress off from our lives.
Some students depend on them whether to release their stress to avoid writing. In either
case, students believe they are good strategies. In the interviews with the students,
some of them (6/14) shared diverse strategies to cope with their writing difficulties
like watching movies, listening to music, taking a break from writing, and staying
alone. Others (11/14) looked for online platforms that help explain the academic
writing aspects to overcome their writing difficulties and shortcomings, although its
effectiveness is temporary, as the students claimed. For example, a student who
struggled with writing relied on taking a break, and social context for overcoming the
struggle in academic writing said:

"So, usually, I will just like leave the books aside, put everything away, so I do
not see it, maybe give myself one day or two days away from the books and everything,
go out with friends maybe, or maybe go out, have a cup of coffee alone. So, I can
regroup myself and rethink about the last point I reached in my writing so that I can
follow from there" (Interview with Student 1).

While another student relied on watching educational videos on social platforms

to educate himself on what he lacks in writing academically, he stated:

"I am actually looking and watching some videos which are debatable on how
useful th[ey] are that teaches students in short how to get over their anxiety or how to
get over their… umm… the problems they face [in writing] or which sites, websites,
and tools that they [students] could use and could benefit them in writing their
academic papers" (Interview with Student 6).

Time management. Time management is finding a balance between life

responsibilities and routine activities (Tremblay-Wragg et al., 2021). Half of the

64
interviewed students (7/14) stated that they seek to manage their time. That strategy
helped them keep up with their writing and make progress and avoiding the racing
deadlines.

Writing drafts. Four students out of the 14 interviewed master’s students

reported that they depended on writing “many” drafts to attain their writing tasks. For
instance:

“I don't have [a] specific writing style, but the first thing is writing a draft
because I just need to write everything in my mind, and then I write, and I see that this
idea is related to my topic and this idea is not related to my topic" (Interview with
Student 8).

• Summary of Theme Five

The fifth theme explored the various strategies that the master’s students
followed to overcome their academic writing difficulties. These strategies were
reading, effective communication with someone, social platforms usage, time
management, and writing drafts. All the participants (14/14) in the study agreed on the
significant role of reading in developing their writing skills and widen their horizons
to write academically. The interviewed students reported that building communication
channels with someone they trust and believe in them, where they feel good to talk to
someone who can listen to them or give them a piece of advice, is significant in making
their writing better. Many students depended on social activities like watching movies,
listening to music to overcome their writing setbacks. Other students reported
depending on social platforms to look up some research-related materials and websites
to bridge the shortcomings of their writing. Some other students tried to manage their
time; to find a balance between their daily life and their academic life to get their
writing done. Finally, few students (4/14) reported that they prefer to write as many
drafts as possible to attain their academic writing tasks.

f. Students’ attitudes and recommendations

The sixth and the final theme addressed the master’s graduate students’ attitudes
towards writing academically and their recommendations to minimize these
difficulties.

Attitudes towards academic writing. Many researchers and studies (e.g., Johns,
1999; Victoria, 1999) focused on students' attitudes towards L2 writing and their

65
writing experiences. It exhibited a complex interconnection between students'
attitudes, writing experiences, and writing development. In the study, all participants
(14/14) seemed interested in sharing their experiences and perspectives towards
writing in English; however, some drifted away from the original questions, sometimes
because of the lack of awareness and other times for the lack of spoken English
competence. However, ten students out of the 14 interviewed students experienced
strong ties to writing in English, and they expressed their positive attitudes towards
academic wiring in English. For instance:

"I love writing. It really gives like a way of expressing yourself or some kind of
things. Academic writing… actually, I did not think I was good at it, but it came to be
I am good at it, in some way" (Interview with Student 1).

Students' recommendations and suggestions. Out of the 14 interviewed students,

12 students expressed various views and suggestions on what can happen to minimize
and improve academic writing among master’s graduate students' whereas, other
participants lacked any knowledge or perspective on what can be done to improve their
academic writing. The latter participants seemed to be less focused on the notion of
academic writing itself and occasionally drifted away from the topic and addressed
minor aspects of scholarly writing rather than thinking about the bigger picture and the
main struggle. Those who shared their perspectives and recommendations called for a
practical application of academic writing in their studies, and in specific, they
suggested having an in-depth academic writing course that takes into account the
previously stated problems, helps students be better writers, and prepare them to be
academicians and post-graduate students.

• Summary of Theme Six

The aim of this theme was twofold. First, it focused on exploring the attitudes of
the participants towards writing academically at the master’s graduate level. Second,
it sought to understand the participants' recommendations to minimize and overcome
academic writing difficulties. Most of the study participants (10/14) affirmed that they
have no negative feelings towards academic writing, except four participants who
disliked academic writing. Therefore, students in the study shared their perspectives
on implications that should help students overcome academic writing setbacks and
others that require fundamental pedagogical implications.

66
D. Qualitative Findings from the Open-Ended Questionnaires

The analysis of the data collected from the open-ended questionnaire with the
faculty members (Appendix C) followed theoretical thematic analysis in which the
research questions drove by the analysis and the analysts' focus (Braun & Clarke,
2006).

1. Presentation of Findings from the Open-Ended Questionnaires

This section describes the qualitative data findings collected through the open-
ended questionnaire from the faculty members. Two themes were identified, with a
total of 12 sub-themes, as presented in Table 9. The two main themes were “academic
writing-related obstacles” and “perceptions and recommendations.”

Table 9. Summary of Themes and Subthemes from Open-Ended Questionnaire

Themes
Academic writing related obstacles
Perceptions and Recommendations
Subthemes
Level of English proficiency
Synthesis of information
Building arguments and claims
Control of academic writing style
Use of source material
Cohesive devices
Vocabulary
Punctuation
Lack of reading
Difficulty writing-up research
Perceptions towards students writing
Recommendations and suggestions

In this section, the researcher aimed at presenting and defining each theme and
subsequent theme as in Table 9.

a. Academic writing related obstacles

The findings showed that all the faculty members (5/5) in the study believe that
the master’s graduate students have many writing problems in their academic writing.
All these problems are related to the nature of the students' scholarly writing
conventions, with no explanation of the factors that contributed to these weak skills.
Overall, the researcher identified ten subthemes from the university faculty members'
perspectives as problems in the master’s graduate students’ academic writing. These

67
problems include "lack of using source materials," "building arguments and claims,"
"difficulties writing-up research," "punctuation," "vocabulary," "cohesive devices,"
"control of academic writing style," "synthesis of information," "level of English
proficiency" and "lack of reading." Figure 4.2. presents the frequency of these themes.

Academic Writing Obstacles

Lack of reading 16.70%
Coherence and cohesion 33.30%
Level of English proficiency 83.30%
Synthesis of information 83.30%
Puncuation 83.30%
Control of academic writing style 83.30%
Difficulties writing-up research 83.30%
Cohesive devices 83.30%
Vocabulary 83.30%
Building arguments and claims 100%
Use of source material 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Figure 2. Academic Writing Related Obstacles from The Perspective of

Faculty Members

The findings from the open-ended questionnaire with the faculty members
suggest that the problems presented in Figure 4.2. are the most common among the
master’s graduate students. All faculty members agreed that writing up research,
source materials usage, and building arguments and claims are the most prominent
problems in students writing. Although the faculty members were asked to provide
examples and explanations on the factors that promote these problems, they
occasionally ignored the questions or left them with no answer. However, in few cases
(2/5), they provided brief answers. For example, all faculty members (5/5) agreed that
students struggled with writing up their research, specifically, writing the literature
review. In the words of one of the faculty members on his students’ thesis writing, he
said, “[…] thesis students have difficulties writing a good literature review where they
have to show the gap and prove that what they are going to do is not a silly thing”
(FM01). However, they have not included any further details or explanations on the
causes of this gap in the master’s graduate students’ literature review writing.

68
b. Faculty members perceptions and recommendations

This subsection presents the faculty and supervision members' perspectives on

the graduate students' academic writing practices. It also highlights their views on the
possible ways to improve students' scholarly writing at the graduate level.

Perceptions towards students writing. The perceptions of the faculty members

and supervisors on the problems that the master’s graduate students face in their
writing are very significant to address and to understand. This necessity stems from
the very idea that if we know what the problems are and what factors play a role in
these problems, faculty members could help students bridge these problems.

The respondents were asked to share their perceptions of their supervisees'

academic writing deficits in the first question. All faculty members (5/5) reported poor
and inadequate writing skills; to meet the rigor of the graduate school and the master
program. However, there is no evidence from the provided answers on the causes of
these inadequate academic writing skills. Only one faculty member shared her
perception on why graduate students' academic writing is not satisfying, saying: "I
believe they do not spend enough time to read literature about the relevant topic. I[t]
influences academic writing negatively. [B]ecause they are not familiar with the
writing rhetoric and the terminology" (FM05). Another faculty member gave a better-
detailed answer, saying:

"Their paragraphs do not flow logically. They have redundancy problems. They
repeat the same words and ideas. Their interpretations of the tables and figures are
weak. They keep repeating the same structure under every table, and they do not
discuss their finding while referring to the findings of other researchers (FM04)"

Recommendations and suggestions. The faculty members recommended three

ways that the master’s graduate students can do to write academically better. The
faculty members suggested that the master’s graduate students should do more reading,
"Students should read the relevant literature and read as many [theses] as possible
about the relevant topic. [I]t assists to write the thesis in terms of writing style and
content" (FM05). Another faculty member advised that the students need to proofread
their writing before turning it in and plan their writing step by step. A faculty member

69
said, "The rule is being constant and consistent, they must take every step under control
rather than using momentum, they have to have it proofread finally" (FM01). As
shown in the word cloud visualization (Figure 4.3.), the most recommended strategy
was "reading," but also, they suggested "self-edit[ing]" and "proofreading" (the size of
each word indicates its frequency).

Figure 3. Word Cloud of the Faculty Members' Recommendations to

Overcome Academic Writing Problems

• Summary of Theme One and Two

The findings from the open-ended questionnaire with the faculty members
revealed that graduate students face prime problems in their academic writing. These
problems include lack in using source materials,” “building arguments and claims,”
“difficulties writing-up research,” “punctuation,” “vocabulary,” “cohesive devices,”
“control of academic writing style,” “synthesis of information,” “level of English
proficiency,” “lack of reading,” and “coherence and cohesion.” However, no adequate
explanations were shared on the causes of these problems or any possible practical
solutions to overcome, eliminate, or minimize these problems.

2. Chapter Summary

This mixed-methods study explored the master’s graduate students' attitudes

towards academic writing, the challenges, and difficulties that they encounter when
they write or are asked to write academically, and the solutions and recommendations
to minimize these obstacles.

70
 The quantitative data were collected from the master’s graduate students via a
questionnaire. The questionnaire aimed at exploring students’ attitudes, beliefs, the
strategies they utilize when writing academically, the sources they use in writing, and
the most frequent problems they face in academic writing.

The qualitative data from the master’s students were collected via semi-
structured interviews with the master’s graduate students and an open-ended
questionnaire with the faculty members. In the semi-structured interviews, the
master’s graduate students shared detailed information about the problems they faced
and encountered in their academic writing tasks, the reasons beyond these problems,
how they overcome them, and their recommendations to minimize and overcome these
difficulties. Open coding of interviews was used, and theoretical thematic analysis was
applied, too. The data revealed six persistent themes: 1) academic writing as the main
obstacle, 2) influences on the writing process, 3) socioeconomic problems, 4)
supervisor's relationship, 5) coping with academic writing problems, and 6) attitudes
and recommendations.

In the open-ended questionnaire, the faculty members shared their perspectives

on the graduate students' scholarly writing. The data revealed two main themes:
academic writing-related obstacles and perceptions on and recommendations for
students writing. Overall, the faculty members were not satisfied with their students
writing, and they thought it was inadequate. They also shared the most common
problems they noticed in their students' writing. Finally, they provided some
suggestions on the possible ways graduate students can minimize their academic
writing problems.

71
72
V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

A. Overview

This chapter presents four sections, each highlighting a specific area in the
research. First, the researcher presents the study findings within the existing literature
on the challenges and difficulties in academic writing at the master’s graduate level
based on the data collected through a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews
with master’s graduate students and an open-ended questionnaire with the faculty
members. Second, the researcher discusses and sheds light on the study implications;
to offer insight into the study interpreted data and understand why the findings were
the way they were. The third section presents the study limitations, while the fourth
section offers future research suggestions.

B. Conclusion

1. Research Question 1: What writing strategies do graduate students use in

academic writing?

Writing academically at the graduate level has many requirements and demands
that students must meet to write well-written scholarly work. To attain this goal,
students follow many strategies that can help them achieve a satisfactory writing level.
As part of their process to accommodate themselves with academic writing, the
participants in the study found ways to fill the gaps in their writing problems and
difficulties. In the questionnaire, 18 out of 28 master’s students stated that when they
write, they always go back to their assignments to edit their mistakes that they might
have committed in terms of grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. This
suggests that the students are aware of one of the leading writing foundations in
academic writing on the language level. The second most used strategy was
brainstorming. Fifteen master’s students’ out of 28 stated that they brainstorm and
write ideas down before writing about their assignments. This particular finding might
indicate the students' attentivity to the significant role of brainstorming in improving

73
their academic writing skills. Another writing strategy that half of the master’s
graduate students (14/28) used in their writing was to revise their writing assignments
to make their ideas look more genuine and straightforward. That shows the students'
keen attention to the content of their writing and their understanding of the importance
of proofreading for a better writing product. Moreover, the same number of the
participants (14/28) stated that they always carefully check their assignment
instructions to attain their writing goals. To read and check the assignment instructions
regularly and carefully, we can understand that the students are trying to engross
themselves in the task and develop strong connection and communication with the
writing task. Among the other writing strategies that 12 master’s students out of 28
reported are to outline the main points of their writing assignments before writing.
Therefore, this strategy helps the students effectively communicate their voice to the
reader, brainstorm ideas related to the task, and organize their ideas to attain the writing
task. Lastly, nine of the master’s students reported that they usually tend to discuss
their assignments and writing tasks with other students to elicit feedback and
scaffolding to enhance their writing. On that account, peer feedback allows the
students to clarify their ideas and provide feedback that they might consider relevant
to their writing tasks. In seeing relevant feedback, the students work harder and better;
to improve their writing and share their academic voices.

In the qualitative findings, all the interviewed participants (14/14) shared that
reading is a strategy of great significance to learn about their research problem and to
improve their academic writing skills to learn and understand more about their research
writing. Eschholz (1980) assures that when students read texts with similar
characteristics to what they expect to imitate, they feel it is easier to identify text
features that they did not have a good idea to articulate. Another strategy that all the
interviewed master’s students (14/14) recommended was building communication
channels with their peers to find support and guidance and with faculty members and
supervisors for support and encouragement. Among the other strategies that the
master’s students (11/14) shared were the usage of social platforms to bridge the gaps
and the shortcomings of their research and knowledge, finding a balance between life
responsibilities and academic life (7/14), and writing research drafts (4/14) to train
themselves and process their writing.

74
 These are all the examples of the strategies that the master’s graduate students
used in their academic writing to overcome the insufficiency of their academic writing
skills and the gaps they faced in writing. Studies (e.g., Hayes & Flower, 1986; Kieft et
al., 2006; Abas & Aziz, 2017) on students writing strategies found differences between
novice and expert writers when using strategies like planning, composing, and revising
their writing assignments. Hayes and Flower (1986) suggest that adept writers invest
adequate time in the pre-writing phase, where preparation comes like “daydreaming,
sketching, doodling, making lists of words, reading, conversing, and writing” (Graves,
1983, p. 76). To conclude, regardless of the diverse strategies that the students use in
their writing practices, writing is a complex skill that requires hard work, practice, and
skill development that takes long periods.

2. Research Question 2: What are the graduate students’ attitudes and

behaviors towards academic writing assignments?

During the last few years, scholars pointed out the importance of students'
attitudes in academic writing; for example, Johns (1997) asserted the significance of
"personal theories" that influence students and teachers in learning and teaching
academic literacies (p.3). Nevertheless, studies addressing students' attitudes towards
L2 academic writing from students' perceptions "that is, with students' perceptions,
experiences, and attitudes towards various aspects of writing" remain scarce (Petric,
2002, p. 11).

In the questionnaire with the master’s graduate students, Item 1 sought to

understand the master’s graduate students' attitudes towards writing for pleasure in
their free time. The answers were varied; nevertheless, eight master’s students out of
28 stated that they sometimes write for pleasure in English during their free time. The
students' attitudes towards writing show their tendency to communicate their voices
and their desire to write. Therefore, we can assume that they are aware of the
challenges they might face in writing. While investigating the master’s graduate
students' attitudes towards academic writing assignments in English, almost half of the
master’s students (15/28) stated that they find writing in English is easy, whereas
eleven of them stayed neutral, stating that they find writing assignments in English
neither difficult nor easy.

75
 In the semi-structured interviews with the master’s graduate students, ten out of
the 14 students stated they like academic writing. Yet, with the lack of scholarly
writing practices, the complexity of writing tasks at the graduate level, and their lack
of academic skills, their academic writing might not be as satisfying to them as they
wished it to be. The other master’s students (4/14) expressed no tendency to write
academically. Two of them stated that they do not feel academic writing is as essential
to them as English teachers compared to others interested in becoming scholars and
educators in higher education. The other two students said they do not like academic
writing, for its complicated nature that they cannot understand or keep up with it.

Overall, the interviewed master’s students seem interested in sharing their

attitudes towards L2 academic writing; however, they differed in how they articulated
their attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors towards academic writing. We can ascribe
these differences in expressing attitudes towards academic writing in L2 to the
participants' awareness of these issues.

The previously mentioned different perspectives of master’s graduate students

towards academic writing can be understood via Bandura's (1993) self-efficacy theory,
overviewed in Dörnyei (1998). In a nutshell, the theory asserts individuals' abilities to
perform specific actions that will determine whether they can stand for their actions,
act upon them, and to what extent apply them. So, the theory suggests that an
individual with solid confidence approaches a task with a high sense of self-efficacy,
unlike an individual with low confidence who approaches a writing task with a low
sense of self-efficacy, and therefore, avoid it, or delay it, or not adequately do it.

3. Research Question 3: What sources do graduate students’ use to complete

academic writing tasks?

Graduate students utilized many tools and sources to attain their writing tasks.
They depended on digital writing tools that helped them write academically better.
Digital writing tools are defined as online-based resources used in a social context to
bring people together, motivate them and help them engage in the writing classroom
settings (McKee-Waddell, 2015).

76
 In the questionnaire, the participants were inquired about the resources that they
use in their academic writing. Most of the participants (24/28) stated that they use a
combination of journals and books as prime sources tools to achieve their writing tasks,
whereas only six of them said they depend solely on journals.

The interviews with the master’s graduate students were not any different from
the findings of the questionnaire. Out of the 14 master’s interviewed students, eight
students focused on journals as their sole and free source to use. The rest of the
master’s students (6/14) used a combination of books and journals to write up their
research and academic research articles. However, some students (5/14) reported many
difficulties in getting access to books. These difficulties were mainly, but not limited
to, the costly prices of books, and scarcity in access to books, even via the university
library.

To sum up, the collected data from the master’s graduate students via the
questionnaire and semi-structured interviews denotes positive attitudes towards using
digital writing tools and research engines.

4. Research Question 4: What difficulties do graduate students’ experience in

completing academic writing tasks?

This question serves as the foundation of the research, as the master’s graduate
students shared various challenges that they are struggling with in academic writing.
It is hard to make clean-cut profiles of the challenges that the master’s graduate
students face or are facing in their writing; however, the participants shared the most
problematic areas and aspects of their academic writing. In this section, the researcher
presents each problem and difficulty in the light of the master’s students' answers in
the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, respectively.

Referencing & Citation. In the questionnaire with the master’s graduate students,
almost half of the participants (12/28) stated they struggle with referencing and citation
in their writing whereas, in the interviews with the master’s students, nine master’s
students out of the 14 interviewed students reported having problems in citation styles.
The two main problems that the master’s students struggled with and shared concerns
about were related to a) understanding and staying up to date with citation styles (e.g.,
APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) and b) getting access to an adequate number of citation and
references to support their research. These challenges that the master’s students shared

77
are in line with previous studies' findings (e.g., Neville, 2012; Azizah & Budiman,
2018; Mahmood, 2020; Sampsel & Taft, 2021).

Expressing Own Voice. Academic writing is a way to express an identity that

builds bridges between the writer and the reader. The message of academic writing is
content-based, and a writer's ideas and thoughts and what they represent. EFL students
have very little knowledge about utilizing the English they have learned at school (Iida,
2010). However, at the graduate level, they are expected to write scholarly as native
speakers do. EFL graduate students may and are expected to produce well-written
grammatical sentences and use high-frequency vocabulary; nevertheless, they often
struggle in expressing their thoughts and ideas in writing. In educational settings, most
of the emphasis is on accuracy and content, not to help students develop a voice of
their own to express their thoughts and ideas. Iida (2010) defined the term voice as
"the articulation of their personal needs, interests, and ideas—in a social context that
presumes an audience—the teachers, classmates, and even the community at large" (p.
28).

In the questionnaire with the master’s graduate students, eight students out of 28
stated that they face problems expressing their voices whereas, a few participants
(4/28) pointed out that they struggle with using the language in their academic writing
tasks. However, in the interviews with the master’s graduate students, five out of 14
declared that they grapple with expressing their thoughts at some stage of their writing
because they lack an academic writing foundation and English is not their native
language.

In a nutshell, students' voice in writing is tied strongly to their own identity, and
without one, they will not be able to express their perspectives. How a writer
communicates their ideas depends on a large part of social and psychological factors
that inspires the writer to write and communicate their voice (Hyland, 2002).

Paraphrasing. According to the Longman dictionary, the definition of the term

paraphrasing is "to express in a shorter, clearer, or different way what someone has
said or written." The importance of paraphrasing lay in the fact that it halts students
from falling into plagiarism, and it shows the degree to which a student can understand
written texts in English (Keck, 2014). Also, it inspires writers to develop "knowledge

78
transformation" where they can share their ideas and express their voices (Hirvela &
Du, 2013).

In the questionnaire, eight master’s graduate students out of 28 stated that they
struggle with paraphrasing. In the interviews with the master’s graduate students, four
students out of the 14 interviewed reported problems with paraphrasing. However,
some students might have misunderstood the concept of paraphrasing and confused it
with summarizing, which Hirvela and Du defined as "a significantly condensed
version of a longer source text that requires the use of various devices in the process
of achieving that reduction in length" (2013, P. 88).

Coherence & Cohesion. Eight master's students out of 28 participants in the

questionnaire stated that they have problems in coherence and cohesion of their
academic written texts. In the interviews, seven master’s students out of 14 reported
challenges using formal and scholarly language that is coherent and cohesive during
their writing practices. The two main problems that the master’s students shared were
related to using the academic formal English language and building good structure.
We might ascribe these problems to the students' lack of academic writing and reading
skills or their poor level of English.

Vocabulary. Graduate writing requires having a balance between connectedness

and fluency in a written text. However, this is quite a challenge for the EFL graduate
students for several problems they face with vocabulary.

Nevertheless, in the questionnaire two students reported having problems with

vocabulary choice. While among the interviewed participants, six students out of the
14 interviewed master’s students reported lexicon problems. These problems were:
lack of sufficient academic vocabulary and aptness of chosen vocabulary.

That suggests several reasons play a significant role in the problems that the
students face with vocabulary. To clarify, the students might struggle with vocabulary
for their poor reading habits and strategies. In other words, the study participants tend
to read less, and if they read, it is just to achieve a specific task assigned to them. As a
result, they fail to be lexically versatile, and their verbal command becomes paralyzed
over time. Moreover, a lack of English command might have resulted in problems in
vocabulary.

79
 Academic writing as the main obstacle. The results from the semi-structured
interviews with the master’s graduate students revealed seven subthemes and counted
as difficulties that the master’s students in this study struggle with during their
scholarly writing practices. These problems were "lack of academic writing practices,"
"misunderstanding the nature of academic writing," "lack of academic writing
guidance," "citation styles," "choosing a topic," "difficulty writing up research," and
"difficulties in data analysis.”

Lack of academic writing practices. EFL graduate students strive to produce

scholarly written texts to meet the "rigors of discipline-based writing" (Bronson,
2004); however, academic writing is a complicated task that students intermittently
fail to attain. The inadequacy in academic writing training might result in many painful
challenges for graduate students who have to deal with these problems. In this study,
11 master’s students out of the 14 interviewed graduate students reported feelings of
anxiety and being "stuck" due to the lack of academic writing practices and training
that they sought to help them prepare, understand academic writing better, and bridge
the gap in their writing. The students expected that a course or practice during their
program of study might help them absorb academic writing better if not prepare them
to be academic writers.

Misunderstanding the nature of academic writing. The diversity in the

population of [graduate] students at universities brought many perspectives on how
and what and for what a language can be used (Lillis & Turner, 2001). This diversity
comes at a cost. It brings many challenges in academia, for instance, the deficiency of
understanding academic writing requirements. Unlike writing at the undergraduate
level or general writing, writing in graduate school has demands that students must
meet. Students at the graduate level are expected to review, analyze, and discuss
pedagogical literature, synthesize reading sources and theories, present analytical
analysis in an objective manner, using a scholarly voice, and following [academic]
writing styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, among many others) (Davenport, n.d.).

In the interviews with the master’s students, it became clear that eight maser’s
students out of 14, almost half of the population, misunderstood the nature of academic
writing at the graduate level. One student said that academic writing is no different
from any other kind of writing, even though the interviewer kept reminding the student
that the topic is academic writing, not general or business writing. Other students

80
misunderstood academic writing at the graduate level and compared it to the writing
skills taught in school or during their undergraduate study, which is not akin to
scholarly writing. Another student stated that academic writing and creative writing
(i.e., fiction novels) are similar to the former.

In a nutshell, we find the study participants hold a false perspective towards

scholarly writing at the graduate level. Four master’s students out of 14 stated that they
believe that academic writing is all about using good grammar rules, vocabulary,
logical and flawless paragraphs, and how to write a paragraph. These statements above
support the findings from Itua et al. (2014), where the research participants focused
their attention on academic writing on two main concepts: "structure and grammar"
and "grammar and vocabulary," and nothing else beyond that.

Lack of academic writing guidance. The new technological advances and open
access publications assist students in finding appropriate solutions to the challenges
they encounter in academic writing. Nevertheless, these resources are no help,
sometimes, in complex situations and writing tasks. There remains a gap between
students writing content and the written sources that requisite further help and
guidance.

In the interviews with the master’s graduate students, they releveled the various
problems they might be facing as a result of the lack of adequate guidance and training.
Half of the interviewed master’s students (7/14) claimed that they received no adequate
guidance during their writing practices and affected their mental health (i.e., stress and
anxiety). Consequently, they failed to use their time wisely and failed to attain their
writing tasks on time.

In a nutshell, with the lack of adequate assessment, the master’s students rely
solely on their supervisors and advisors for aid and guidance and feedback which
might take long, for various reasons (e.g., supervisors’ busy life, lack of
communication channels, lack of mobility), to name a few.

Choosing a topic. Seven master’s students out of the 14 interviewed students

reported two principal problems related to choosing a thesis or research topic. First, on
what basis they should select a topic, and second, the research originality. In the former
case, due to the participants' lack of knowledge, they had no idea how to select a topic
to research. As the students communicated their concerns to their supervisors for

81
guidance, two students out of 14 claimed to receive no answer to their requests, the
rest of the students depended on reading to figure out a topic to write about or consulted
their peers, supervisors, or someone knowledgeable about academic settings. In the
latter case, three out of the 14 interviewed master’s students stated that they
experienced a problem choosing an "original" topic for their research. In other words,
the students meant that the research that they are going to carry out is up-to-date,
addresses a newly emerging issue, and is not an old-dated topic, as they claimed.

It is indisputable that the students are responsible for determining a topic for
their thesis and academic papers; however, some master’s students (5/14) expected
more guidance and communication channels with their supervisors and faculty
members to help facilitate their writing process. The master’s graduate students'
problems in selecting a research topic for their research and having no clue what they
should write about align with Daniati and Nugroho's (2016) findings and literature
review. However, the results of being indecisive on a research topic are that the
students give up and drift away from writing for months. Furthermore, as they come
back to writing and reach out to their supervisors again, they come empty-handed, with
racing deadlines and no idea what they want to write.

Difficulty writing up research. Three prime barriers arose among the master’s
students while writing up their research papers: introduction, literature review, and
methods sections. The students reported several reasons that resulted in these
difficulties. For example, the students who struggled with writing up the introduction
section (8/14) had problems understanding the purpose of the introduction, the content,
the structure, and what kind of information shall they include. The main reason beyond
the students' confusion in writing up the introduction and the study background might
be due to the lack of academic writing practices, their lack of reading research in their
field of research, or their poor English language skills. Notwithstanding, the master’s
students relied on online platforms and scholarly journals to fill the gap in their
understanding. By and large, the students were not 100% successful because of the
variety of methods in writing the introduction section.

Furthermore, six out of the 14 interviewed students stated that they had problems
writing the literature review and found it very confusing to write. The causes are
similar to those mentioned in writing the introduction section; however, four students
out of the 14 misunderstood the literature review's intention. A student in the study

82
stated that writing the literature review made him "overwhelmed" and "confused"
because he thought he had to write up and include all and every theory and study
related to his research topic. We can assume that the students' confusion in writing the
literature review might is due to 1) the lack of academic reading 2) the difficulties in
writing the literature review (Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020).

Lastly, we found out that (5/14) of the interviewed students face problems in
writing the methods section, and the obstacles they struggled with vary. These
challenges are related to writing up the section content, data collection, sampling
process, selecting research instruments, and research methods, precisely the mixed-
methods approach. The causes beyond these difficulties are no different from the
causes of problems stated above regarding writing the introduction and the literature
review sections of academic research.

Difficulties in data analysis. The study participants pointed out two main
problems regarding analysis, a) adopting a methodological analysis approach and b)
using analysis software. In the first case, the students failed to determine the
appropriate methodological approach to their research. That resulted from several
problems strongly tied to insufficient knowledge and their lack of practice or training.

In the interviews with the master’s students, eight students out of 14 stated
having problems with data analysis and no adequate knowledge or training concerning
the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approach. Also, the students
mentioned that they did not have enough background knowledge on research
methodological analysis (e.g., thematic analysis, content analysis, grounded theory,
etc.). Therefore, those students depended on their readings from the internet and via
scholarly journals. However, these resources might be faulty or not a good fit for their
studies at times. These shortcomings might create new problems in their research and
delay in their writing.

In the second case, the students struggled in using data analysis software. That
has resulted from the lack of practical application on using such software (e.g., SPSS),
and the students lack the awareness to be autonomous learners. Therefore, the students
failed to put such software into use since they require practice and training, and no one
can learn them overnight.

83
 However, the students followed many strategies and methods to overcome this
setback. For example, seven master’s students out of the 14 interviewed relied on
online platforms like YouTube to understand the usage of SPSS software or sought
professional help.

Grammar concerns. There has been extensive research on the grammar features
and problems that graduate students face in their spoken and written discourse.
Graduate students should master the knowledge of grammar and manage to produce
well-written academic texts. In the current study, five students from the 14 interviewed
students expressed concerns about their grammar abilities. For the most part, those
students were afraid to make fatal mistakes in their academic writing assignments,
especially in complex writing tasks like a thesis. The prime reason that the students
fear committing problems in grammar is their inadequate grammatical knowledge.
Another factor that caused the students' grammar problems is what Richards (1973)
suggests as "overgeneralization and ignorance of rule restriction" (p. 25).

Supervisors’ relationship. Three problems emerged from the interviews with the
students that affected their writing negatively. These problems were lack of
communication with teacher educators, lack of formative feedback, and fear of not
meeting educators’ expectations.

Lack of communication with faculty members. Adequate supervision plays a

significant role in the academic contribution to academia. Also, effective, and clear
communication with a supervisor is essential to sustain a productive and healthy
research environment (Moses, 1992).

In the interviews with the master’s students, six students out of 14 shared their
frustration and concerns regarding the infrequent communication channels they have
with their supervisors and academic advisors. Several factors might attribute to the
lack of communication among the students and faculty members. For instance, the lack
of mobility might be relatively new but strongly affects higher education at many
levels. Other problems are the faculty members' lack of time or social problems that
limit their communication. The only channel of communication the students have with
the teacher educator was via email. However, those students who claimed to have
infrequent communication with their faculty members stated that they sometimes take
a very long time to answer; therefore, that causes delays in the writing and motivates

84
them less to write. To conclude, Kandlbinder and Peseta (2001) proposed to have a
good relationship between supervisor and supervisee, regular meetings, and [effective
communication] are predominant keys for successful supervision (Bruns, 2020).

Lack of formative feedback. The feedback that supervisors provide on and to the
students writing is crucial to improve their writing quality and refinement in their
academic writing skills. Half of the interviewed students (7/14) reported that the
feedback that they received from their supervisors and faculty members varied in
quality and effectiveness. The problems with given feedback include, but are not
limited to, the focus on the structure or linguistical errors in the content. Some of the
participants (4/14) stated that the feedback they received from their supervisors was
inefficient because they can find the given feedback online on any academic platform
that provides information for students on academic writing.

Inquiring the students about the expected feedback from their supervisors, the
students called for positive feedback or written and oral corrective feedback on their
writing. Eyres et al. (2001) suggest that students mean by "positive feedback" that they
are looking for critical comments on the content of their writing, and they want to
know what is expected of them to write academically better.

In practical terms, the master’s graduate students, on the large part, rely on their
supervisors for feedback and consultation on their writing (Tremblay-Wragg et al.,
2021). Here, the master’s graduate students were not aware of the aspects of being
autonomous learners as half of the interviewed students (7/14) relied solely on their
supervisors for feedback. In a nutshell, the students' lack of knowledge on how faculty
members’ might evaluate and assesses their writing can lead to many challenges and
setbacks in their academic writing.

Meeting faculty members expectations. This was the third problem that six
master’s students out of the 14 interviewed declared a challenge during their academic
writing practices. The students feared that their writing might not meet their
supervisors’ expectations. Therefore, that hindered their writing process and added a
toll on them. From the findings, it is clear that if the students know what their
supervisors expect from their writing and on which basis they would evaluate the
students writing, the students might be able to write more effectively with less anxiety.

85
 Socioeconomic challenges. Socioeconomic factors affect students learning and
their academic writing negatively (Chokwe, 2013). The findings from the interviewed
students revealed five main problems, and they were: stress and anxiety, time
consumption, busy life, frustration, lack of mobility, and lack of motivation.

Stress and anxiety. Feelings of stress and anxiety among students in general and
graduate students, in particular, have occupied a significant body of literature (Huerta
et al., 2017). The literature on graduate students shows how anxiety can affect students
negatively and paralyze their academic performance.

During the interviews, all the participants (14/14) expressed what triggers their
anxiety and stress that affect and delay their academic writing. The interviews with the
master’s students showed several reasons and challenges that the students deal with
writing academically. These problems were related to finding an adequate number of
references, choosing a research and thesis topic, writing process, writing in L2, lack of
academic writing practice, insufficient writing skills, lack of formative feedback,
negative comments, lack of time, lack of mobility, financial problems, fears of not
meeting supervisor expectations, deadlines, and worrying about finding a job after
graduation. At different stages in their writing practice, the students complained that
they failed to begin in the first place because they had no idea how to start, where to
start, how to find a suitable topic, and if they did find a research topic, how they will
begin writing their thesis or their paper. To sum up, anxiety about writing is both a
common and conquerable condition among students at the graduate level. However,
stress, anxiety, and writing anxiety among master’s graduate students is a predominant
topic yet not adequately addressed.

Time consumption. No doubt, academic writing requires practice and effort, and
among graduate students who are extremely busy and under pressure, time
consumption is yet another challenge in their way. The interviews with the master’s
graduate students (10/14) releveled five main problems related to time consumption.
These problems were related to managing time during the writing process, choosing a
thesis topic, reading papers, difficulties in understanding academic texts, and learning
how to use software analysis. These difficulties bring about obstacles in students
writing and might result in falling behind deadlines and delaying writing. For instance,
five master’s students reported that their time is engrossed in learning using analysis
software, like SPSS. The students received no practical training on using the software,

86
and as they needed to use it, they could not. While students took it upon themselves to
learn and “figure out” the shortcomings of their studies and learn how to use such
software (i.e., SPSS), students reported that this takes a long time and can hardly be
understood and covered easily. That is not only time-consuming, the students believed,
but also frustrating and might work and might not.

Frustration. In a recent international study across disciplines, feelings of

frustration emerged as a frequent feeling among students more than anxiety (Sword,
2017). Researching higher education and graduate students related studies that deal
with frustration, there were few to nothing that dealt with or addressed
comprehensively graduate students' academic writing frustration.

Half of the interviewed students (7/14) revealed feelings of frustration that

indirectly prevented them from writing. The students reported that frustration stems
from the lack of academic writing training, lack of time management, inadequate
formative feedback, among many other problems that interconnect with their social
life. The reasons beyond the students' frustration are interrelationships with other
factors previously mentioned. For example, lack of experience in using software
analysis, inadequate academic writing skills, time management, lack of
communication with teacher educators' and choosing a topic. Sword et al. (2018) share
similar causes resulted from students' frustration in academic writing. To sum up, these
challenges hinder the master's graduate students writing and pave their way with more
obstacles that they must resolve, causing them more stress, anxiety, lack of time, and
frustration all over again.

Busy life. Like all graduate students worldwide, the participants in the study had
busy lives. Eight master’s students out of 14 stated that they have busy lives, problems,
and situations that steer them away from their writing. They were worried about
finding work, and some of them worked two jobs while writing their thesis to support
their families. Other students had financial problems that derived them to put off their
writing or drop from school for a while. These problems led to challenges in the
students' academic writing, maybe indirectly, but in a way, it causes them troubles.

Lack of mobility. The pandemic has harmed higher education students and
paralyzed their social and academic life. For instance, on-campus courses switched to
online classes, and libraries closed their doors. Also, communication between students

87
and their professors, advisors, and supervisors for guidance and support has changed
and became limited.

In the interviews, six students out of the 14 stated struggling in data collection
from participants or getting access to research materials. With schools and educational
institutions closed, it became complicated to locate members to participate in research
experiments and studies. Few students (3/14) failed to carry out their research because
their research population is in another country, and curfew restrictions were imposed.
That has caused the students to slow down in their writing and became a main and
recent challenge to attain their writing goals.

The students relied on personal connections to find participants to participate in

their studies to overcome these problems. However, generally, they were not able to
find an adequate number of participants. These findings and more are reported
comprehensively on up-to-date research on the impact of Covid-19 on the international
settings of graduate studies and higher education (Aristovnik et al., 2020).

Lack of motivation. Motivation in language learning settings is significant since

it promotes students’ feelings to connect their feelings and research interests to write
and research (Rahayu, 2021). The interviews with the master’s students revealed that
half of the interviewed students (7/14) reported a lack of motivation during their
writing process. The reasons beyond the lack of motivation are diverse; for instance,
social and economic factors and academic life, as previously discussed.

5. Research Question 5: What are the faculty members’ perspectives on what is

problematic in graduate students academic writing practices?

The faculty members agreed that scholarly writing proficiency is significant in

the likelihood of success for the graduate students in the master's program. All faculty
members reported that the students writing at the graduate level do not meet the rigor
of what they expect from them for several reasons (e.g., lack of reading and problems
in students L2 proficiency, etc.). The first question in the open-ended questionnaire
aimed to explore the supervisors' and the faculty members' perceptions of their
students' academic writing.

The faculty members mentioned very little about the notion of graduate students'
academic writing, with no examples from their work with students’ writing, their
academic papers, or their thesis. For the most part, they have listed problems students

88
commit in their writing, not giving enough or clear explanations on these
shortcomings. However, the overall tone and the responses suggest that the faculty
members are not satisfied with their students writing.

The second question aimed to explore the frequency of academic writing

problems among graduate students. The researcher presented the recurrence of these
problems from the most problematic to the least in Chapter 4 (Figure 4.2.). All of the
faculty members (5/5) agreed that the students have problems in building arguments
and claims in their writing and that the students lack resources.

Although there are many publications on the usage of source materials, it is still
a complaint among L2 students (Marshall & Garry, 2006; Gilmore et al., 2010) that
they produce work in which original materials is poorly referenced that it arises
accusations of plagiarism (Shi, 2008; Keck, 2006). Other studies and researchers
affirm the study findings and faculty members' perceptions of students' academic
writing problems. For example, students' overuse of cohesive devices in their writing
affects it negatively, so does inadequate use (Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011; Ong, 2011).
The lack of academic reading shows a gap in students writing. That is seen in their
lack of information synthesis and building arguments and claims (Zhao & Hirvela,
2015). However, the faculty members provided no explanations on the causes of these
problems or what triggers these difficulties among students.

6. Research Question 6: What are faculty members’ suggestions to improve

graduate students’ academic writing?

The faculty members shared three main recommendations to improve students’

academic writing at the graduate level. These were reading, proofreading, and planning
the process of writing. Regarding the ability to write academically well, one of the
faculty members thinks graduate students need to read academic research studies with
a critical lens and closely examine “the word choice, style, and punctuation of the more
experienced researchers,” (FM05, Pos. 5). Badley (2009) proposes an approach called
“de-constructing and re-constructing” that aims at reading academic papers as
academicians and writing research as researchers, respectively (p. 212). When reading
academically, we do not do so to rewrite the exact content of the previous studies but
to find and see suggestions, ideas, concepts that might reflect our stance in research
(Badley, 2009). Also, the faculty members confirmed that students must read as much

89
as possible in their research topic, in-depth reading, to reflect and write profoundly.
In-depth reading is not merely reporting or commenting on what students read but
rather analyzing critically what they write and how it is connected to their research.

Two faculty members’ out of five advocated the importance of proofreading in

improving one’s academic writing. Studies on students’ academic writing
proofreading are notable for their absence (Harwood et al., 2012). However, we can
understand that proofreading is very significant because it helps students notice their
mistakes, modify, and correct their writing. In other words, as Munoz-Luna (2015)
suggested, proofreading is one of the main ingredients for success in graduate school
and academic writing.

Lastly, a few faculty members (2/5) stated that the students need to plan their
writing rather than leaving it unplanned. However, little is understood of what faculty
members refer to in terms of ‘planning’ writing.

C. The Implications of the Study

This section will discuss the study implications and the possible changes that
might be elicited within the M.A. program. The study's implications might be
discussed under three headings: writing retreats, formative feedback support, and EFL
master’s graduate students’ responsibilities.

Writing retreats. The study supports providing apt support and guidance for
master’s graduate students to enhance and advance their academic writing skills. It is
clear that the students find academic writing a highly complex task, and they face many
challenges in academic writing. The university might respond to the master’s graduate
students' needs to improve their academic writing by taking the initiative in providing
master’s graduate students with practical scholarly writing guidance and support.
Several universities have carried out many initiatives to provide their students with
support and guidance in their academic writing through counseling, workshops, and
courses. However, since the previously mentioned initiatives did not achieve what it
promised, universities implemented new initiatives through structured writing
interventions, support groups, or structured writing retreats (Tremblay-Wragg et al.,
2021; Noone & Young, 2019; Harrington, 2018; Gardner et al., 2018; Kornhaber et
al., 2016; Hass, 2011). So, what is a writing retreat? Writing retreats are “events

90
organized for a group of people writing in a shared space, over several days, during
which participants exchange information regarding individual goals, achievements,
and setbacks” (Vincent et al., 2021, p. 2). Therefore, writing retreats proved to be
helpful for academic writers at the graduate level (e.g., Quynn & Stewart, 2021; Papen
& Thériault, 2018; Murray & Newton, 2009) on many levels, as shown below in Figure
4 (Kornhaber et al., 2016).

Figure 4. Conceptual Map of the Relationships Between Retreat Outcomes and

Key Themes

Source: Kornhaber et al. 2016, p. 1221

Corrective formative feedback. In terms of feedback, the data gathered from the
master’s graduate students shows that not all participants shared the same attitudes
towards the given feedback they received from their supervisors and faculty members’
during the program. Supervisors and faculty members’ might provide students with
formative written and oral corrective feedback; to improve their writing skills, the
accuracy of their academic writing and encourage them to write. The role of feedback
and assessment that supervisors and faculty members would provide to their students

91
is not merely to help them edit their assignments. But also, to teach them how to avoid
these mistakes when they write again.

EFL master’s graduate students. While some students stated they did not
receive adequate feedback on their writing or training, guidance, and support through
their writing, yet, they could have taken it upon themselves to learn and strengthen
their academic writing skills. Students could accomplish that through peers, research
group study sessions, private tutors, or the internet and online self-help materials.
Indeed, these resources will not cover every aspect of academic writing, especially in
complex topics like writing a thesis. However, it would have assisted them in building
a better understanding of the process of writing, what they should do to write a well-
written academic text and provided them with a decent scholarly writing foundation.
Students at the graduate level are at a point in their lives where they need to take up
initiative in their educational choices and find alternatives for their limitations in
education, not only wait for help from their supervisors and educational institutions.
The previously stated outlets, and many others, can equip students with the required
skills to produce well-written scholarly work.

D. Limitations of the Study

As in all studies, certain limitations constrained the study and the scope of the
collected data. In this study, the researcher detected three limitations: the small number
of participants in the quantitative study, inadequate data collected from teacher
educators, and the researcher's biases.

Firstly, the number of study participants in the questionnaire has narrowed the
study scope. Before the pandemic, it was easy to get access to students. The pandemic
has shut down universities, the students traveled to their home countries,
communication channels with students became limited, and reaching out to most of
them became complex. However, more participants could have been better in
enhancing the validity of the research and the findings. Besides, it could have
authenticated the study findings and yielded new challenges and perspectives
regarding the difficulties the master’s graduate students struggle with in their writing
practices. Also, this study investigated master's students writing problems in one
program at one university. That narrowed the range of the collected data and the
difficulties that the graduate students have in scholarly writing. To validate this study,

92
and for the sake of discovering more challenges related to academic writing among
master’s students, it could have been better to include more master’s graduate students
from within the same area of research from the same university or other universities.

Secondly, the lack of semi-structured interviews with faculty members is another

limitation. Interviews are a better tool to investigate the research problem in-depth.
Also, to elicit any pedagogical recommendations that they might suggest minimizing
students' academic writing problems.

Lastly, the researcher's biases regarding the study, academic writing

development, and strategies for improving master’s graduate students academic
writing based on his experience as a second/foreign language learner who is still
improving his academic writing skills.

E. Recommendations for Future Research

The academic writing skills of graduate students should be built gradually, from
the first day of admission and through the entire program. With a bridge between
supervisors, educators, and graduate students, the gap in formative feedback and
communication could improve learners' confidence in their writing and minimize their
academic writing problems.

The study limitations draw attention to the narrow scope of the research.
However, they provide a well-founded platform for extended future research. The
study limitations are a rich area for future studies to understand the master’s graduate
students writing difficulties at the master’s level. One impediment that particularly
stands to be very significant for further research is the lack of adequate data collected
from faculty members. Conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews with faculty
members and supervisors could offer a better vision of the assessment and evaluation
of scholarly writing. Specifically, future studies could investigate the significance of
direct and indirect written corrective feedback on students writing and ensure how they
affect master’s students writing and develop their writing accuracy.

For future research, the researcher recommends comparing the experiences,

challenges, and strategies of ESL/EFL master’s graduate students in academic writing.
It could be valuable to know and understand better the types of challenges, writing

93
strategies, and assessments that master’s graduate students face and benefit from in
their academic writing.

Another recommendation is to conduct similar research among EFL doctoral

students. In this research, scholarly trajectories could be conducted to explore several
Ph.D. learners' academic writing challenges. This study could provide better insight
into the type of challenges EFL Ph.D. students struggle with, their strategies to
overcome them, and their perceptions towards academic writing. That could also
reveal the writing assessment tools and feedback that students receive on their
academic writing and how such writing tools could minimize the challenges doctoral
students face in scholarly writing.

94
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

AITCHISON, C., & GUERIN, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing groups for doctoral
education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory. Routledge.
doi.org/10.4324/9780203498811
ALLEN, S. (2015). Beyond Argument: Essaying as a Practice of (Ex)Change
(Perspectives on Writing). Parlor Press, LLC.
ANDES, K. L. (n.d.). Thematic Analysis. MAXQDA. https://www.maxqda.
com/wp/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/MQIC-2019_Spotlight_Handout_
EN_Thematic.pdf
AUSTEN, C. S. (1999). Exploring the academic writing experiences of
undergraduate education students: A phenomenological inquiry
(Order No. 9928279). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/
docview/304547827?accountid=14553
BARTON, D. (2017). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language.
John Wiley & Sons.
BERQUIST, G. (1983). From Research Paper to Published Article. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=ED234450&id=ED234450
BRAUN, V., & CLARKE, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice
in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1–
25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
BRAUN, V., & CLARKE, V. (2021). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic
analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 1–67. https://uwe-
repository.worktribe.com/preview/7165036/Conceptual%20and%20desig
n%20thinking%20for%20thematic%20analysis.pdf
BRICK, J. (2012). Teaching English for academic purposes. In A. Burns, & J. Richards
(Ed.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second
language teaching. New York, USA: Cambridge University press.

95
BRIDGEMAN, B., & CARLSON, S. (1983). Survey of academic writing tasks
required of graduate and undergraduate foreign students. ETS Research
Report Series, 1983(1), i-38. doi.org/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1983.tb00018.x
BRONSON, M. C. (2004). Writing passage: Academic literacy socialization
among ESL graduate students, a multiple case study (Order No.
3161399). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(305216997). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/writing-passage-academic-literacy-
socialization/docview/305216997/se-2?accountid=163008
BROWN, B. (1981). Reading Performance in Low Vision Patients. Optometry and
Vision Science, 58(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-
198103000-00006
BROWN, D. H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy (4th Edition) (2nd ed.). Pearson Education ESL.
https://octovany.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ok-teaching-by-principles-
h-douglas-brown.pdf
BRUNS, H. M. (2020). Evaluating the relationship between supervisor self-
efficacy and competence and the supervisory relationship: A
mediation model (Order No. 27835482). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (2398271974). Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/evaluating-relationship-
between-supervisor-self/docview/2398271974/se-2?accountid=14553
BRUTT-GRIFFLER, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development (Vol.
34). Multilingual Matters. doi.org/10.21832/9781853595790
CASANAVE, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. In Shang-
Butler, H. (2015). Great expectations: A qualitative study of how
chinese graduate students navigate academic writing expectations in
U.S. higher education (Order No. 3703282). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1688715216?accountid=14553
CHEMISHANOVA, P. (2010). Writing knowledge and writing process: A case
study of four aspiring engineering students' composing
processes (Order No. 3441263). Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/docview/ 849742097?accountid=14553

96
CRESWELL, J. W. (2009). Mapping the Developing Landscape of Mixed Methods
Research. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral
Research, 45–68. doi:10.4135/9781506335193.n2
DAVENPORT, D. (n.d.). Graduate-Level Writing Tips: Definitions, Do’s And
Don’ts. Purdue University Online. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from
https://online.purdue.edu/blog/communication/graduate-level-writing-
tips
DUCA, D., & METZLER, K. (2020, May). The Ecosystem of Technologies for
Social Science Research. SAGE Publications.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d5ad9e0100bdf0001af0f5e/t/5ed0
ea0631c1a80efe375fe5/1590749710566/The+Ecosystem+of+Technologi
es+for+Social+Science+Research.pdf
DUFFY, M. (2012). Beliefs and motives behind the paper: Examining relations
between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, writing strategies, and
academic writing achievement (Order No. AAIMR84178). Available
from Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA). Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/beliefs-motives-
behind-paper-examining-relations/docview/1530415505/se-
2?accountid=14553
EHRENREICH, S. (2012). English as a lingua franca today: evolving perspectives.
doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0010
FERRIS, D. R. (2012). Writing instruction. In Richards, I. C. & Burns, A. (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language
teaching (pp. 226-235). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
FISH, S. (2017). Winning Arguments: What Works and Doesn’t Work in Politics,
the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom. Harper.
GOMEZ, C. M. (2013). A key to the dream for adult learners: The acquisition of
academic writing skills (Order No. 3549437). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1283388330). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1283388330?accountid=14553

97
GOMEZ, J. C. (2014). The development of writing skills in Master's level English
as a foreign language teacher education programs: Insight into the
process and perceptions from stakeholders in Colombian
Universities (Order No. 3620099). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (1537388861). https://www.proquest.
com/dissertations-theses/development-writing-skills-masters-level-
english/docview/1537388861/se-2?ac countid=163008
GOUNDAR, S. (2012). Research methodology and research method. Victoria
University of Wellington. URL: https://www. researchgate.
net/publication/333015026_Chapter_3_-_Research_Methodology_and_
Research_Method Accessed, 15.
GRAVES, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. In Meier, D. R.
(2011). Teaching children to write: Constructing meaning and
mastering mechanics. Teachers College Press.
HENDERSON, B. P. (2020). Voicing Graduate Student Writing Experiences: A Study
of Cross-Level Courses at Two Master’s-Level, Regional Institutions [E-
book]. In P. G. Cook (Ed.), Graduate Writing Across the Disciplines
Identifying, Teaching, and Supporting (pp. 49–69). Wac Clearinghouse.
https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-B.2020.0407
JOHNS, A. M. (1999). Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies
(Cambridge Applied Linguistics) (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
KERN, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
KIM, Y. J. (2016). A framework for understanding second language writing
strategies (Order No. 10144771). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (1827605450). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.
com/docview/1827605450?accountid=14553
MCMILLAN, J. H., & SCHUMACHER, S. (2001). Research in Education. A
Conceptual Introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
MERRIAM, S. B., CAFFARELLA, R. S., & BAUMGARTNER, L. M.
(2007). Learning in Adulthood: A comprehensive guide. ProQuest
Ebook Central, https://search.proquest.com

98
METZLER, K., KIM, D. A., ALLUM, N., & DENMAN, A. (2016). Who is doing
computational social science? Trends in big data research [White
paper]. London, UK: SAGE Publishing. doi:10.4135/wp160926
.Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/Com
MOLINARI, J. (2019). What makes writing academic: An educational and
philosophical response (Order No. 28052657). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (2412019116). Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/what-makes-writing-
academic-educational/docview/2412019116/se-2?accountid=14553
MU, C. (2005). A Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies. In Redesigning Pedagogy:
Research, Policy, Practice, 1–10. Retrieved from
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/64/1/64.pdf
MURRAY, D. (2001). Teach Writing as a Process Not Product [E-book]. The
leaflet. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED402614.pdf#page=18
MUSTAFA, B. (2018). Investigating English major undergraduate students'
experiences with writing in English for Academic Purposes in the
University of Prishtina (Order No. 27923242). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (2371847760). https://www.proquest.
com/dissertations-theses/investigating-english-major-undergraduate/doc
view/2371847760/se-2?accountid=163008
O’MALLEY, M. J., & CHAMOT, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
ODLIN, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language
Learning (Cambridge Applied Linguistics) (1st ed.). Retrieved from
https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf/jalt_journal/jj-11.2.pdf
OU, Y. A. (2013). Writing strategies: Perceptions, experience, and use in
undergraduate and graduate ESL students (Order No. 3605044).
Available from Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1476207523). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1476207523?accountid=14553

99
ROONGRATTANAKOOL, D. (1999). Concerns in academic skills and related
coping strategies of international graduate students at Mississippi
State University (graduate students) (Order No. AEH9914053).
Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/619442535?accountid=14553
SALDAÑA, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
SEIDLHOFER, B. (2013). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca: Oxford
Applied Linguistics (1st ed.). Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.tr/
SWORD, H. (2017). Air and light and time and space: How successful academics
write. ProQuest Ebook Central https://www.proquest.com
VAHAPASSI, A. (1988) The domain of school writing. In Mbaye, A. (2002). A
contrastive study of EFL/ESL writing problems: Case studies of five
Senegalese students in United States colleges. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/275643915?accountid=14553
YANG, R. (2018). First-year international chinese undergraduate students'
academic writing in the digital age (Order No. 10973507). Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2193741968?accountid=14553
ZEIGER, V. P. (2021). Masters-level counseling students’ awareness of council of
accreditation of counseling and related educational programs
accreditation (Order No. 28316613). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (2489333692). Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/masters-level-counseling-
students-awareness/docview/2489333692/se-2?accountid=14553

ARTICLES

ABAS, I. H., & AZIZ, N. H. A. (2017). Classification of L2 Writing Process and

Writing Strategies. Proceedings of the ICECRS, 1(1), 367–380.
https://doi.org/10.21070/picecrs.v1i1.505
ACHEN, R. M. (2018). Addressing the "my students cannot write" dilemma:
Investigating methods for improving graduate student writing. Journal of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(4), 71-85. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2228629810?accountid=14553

100
AKINDELE, O. (2008). A critical analysis of the literature review section of graduate
dissertations at the University of Botswana. In Shahsavar, Z., & Kourepaz,
H. (2020). Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their theses
literature review. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1784620
AL BADI, I. A. H. (2015). Academic writing difficulties of ESL learners. In The 2015
WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings, 1(1), 65–78.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ibtisam_Al_Badi/publication/28
0696919_ACADEMIC_WRITING_DIFFICULTIES_OF_ESL_LEARN
ERS/links/55c1b0b908ae9289a09d18dc.pdf
AL FADDA, H. (2012). Difficulties in Academic Writing: From the Perspective of
King Saud University Postgraduate Students. English Language
Teaching, 5(3), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p123
AL MUBARAK, A. A. (2017). An investigation of academic writing problems level
faced by undergraduate students at Al Imam Al Mahdi University-
Sudan. English Review: Journal of English Education, 5(2), 175-188.
doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v5i2.533
ALBUDAIWI, D. (2017). Survey wording. In M. Allen (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia
of communication research methods (Vol. 4, pp. 1731-1734). SAGE
Publications, Inc, https://www.doi.org/10.4135/97814833 81411.n615
AL-KHAIRY, M. A. (2013). Saudi English-Major Undergraduates’ Academic
Writing Problems: A Taif University Perspective. English Language
Teaching, 6(6), 1–12. doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n6p1
AL-NAIBI, I. H., AL-JABRI, M., & AL-KALBANI, I. (2018). Promoting Students’
Paragraph Writing Using EDMODO: An Action Research. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(1), 130–143.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1165747.pdf
ALOGLAH, T. M. A. (2018). Spelling Errors among Arab English Speakers. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 9(4), 746.
doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0904.10
AMEEN, K., BATOOL, S. H., & NAVEED, M. A. (2018). Difficulties novice LIS
researchers face while formulating a research topic. Information
Development, 35(4), 592–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666918774875

101
ANDREW, M. (2012). Supervising doctorates at a distance: three trans‐Tasman
stories. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09684881211198239
ANGELOVA, M., & RIAZANTSEVA, A. (1999). “If You Don't Tell Me, How Can I
Know?” A Case Study of Four International Students Learning to Write
the US Way. Written Communication, 16(4), 491-525. doi.org/10.1177
/0741088399016004004
ANTONIOU, M., & MORIARTY, J. (2008). What can academic writers learn from
creative writers? Developing guidance and support for lecturers in Higher
Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 157–167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510801923229
APPLEBEE, A. N., (1994). National Center for Education Statistics, & Educational
Testing Service. NAEP 1992 Writing Report Card [E-book]. Education
Information Branch, OERI, U.S. Department of Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED370119.pdf
ARAPOFF, N. (1967). Writing: A Thinking Process. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 33.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3585751
ARIPIN, N., & RAHMAT, N. H. (2021). Writing Anxiety and its Signs: A Qualitative
Study of a Female ESL Writer. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(1), 334–345.
https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i1/8399
ARISTOVNIK, A., KERŽIČ, D., RAVŠELJ, D., TOMAŽEVIČ, N., & UMEK, L.
(2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education
Students: A Global Perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438
ARIYANTI, A., & FITRIANA, R. (2017). EFL students’ difficulties and needs in
essay writing. International Conference on Teacher Training and
Education, 158, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.2991/ictte-17.2017.4
ARKOUDIS, S., & TRAN, L. T. (2007). International students in Australia: Read ten
thousand volumes of books and walk ten thousand miles. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 27(2), 157-169. doi.org/10.1080/0218879070137
8792

102
ASMARI, A. A. (2013). Investigation of Writing Strategies, Writing Apprehension,
and Writing Achievement among Saudi EFL-Major Students.
International Education Studies, 6(11), 130–143. https://doi.org/
10.5539/ies.v6n11p130
AZIZAH, U. A., & BUDIMAN, A. (2018). Challenges in Writing Academic Papers
for International Publication among Indonesian Graduates Students.
JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 4(2),
175–198. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v4i2.405
BADLEY, G. (2009). Academic writing as shaping and re-shaping. Teaching in
Higher Education, 14(2), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902
757294
BANDURA, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning . In Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign
language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–135.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144480001315x
BANDURA, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1-3.
doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836
BARTHOLOMAE, D. (1985). Inventing the University. The American Historical
Review, 623–653. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/90.5.1277
BEHRENS, L. (1978). Writing, reading, and the rest of the faculty: A survey. The
English Journal, 67(6), 54-60. dx.doi.org/10.2307/815872
BENTON, S. L., KRAFT, R. G., GLOVER, J. A., & PLAKE, B. S. (1984). Cognitive
capacity differences among writers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(5), 820–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.820
BITCHENER, J., & BASTURKMEN, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of
postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.
2005.10.002
BJÖRKLUND, M., & WENESTAM, C. G. (1999). Academic cheating: frequency,
methods and causes. Paper presented at the European Conference on
Educational Research (ECER), September 22-25, Lahti, Finland.
Retrieved July 29, 2020, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
documents/00001364.htm

103
BLOOM, L. (1981). Why Graduate Students Can't Write: Implications of Research on
Writing Anxiety for Graduate Education. Journal of Advanced
Composition, 2(1/2), 103-117. Retrieved September 16, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20865491
BOICE, R. (1987). Is released time an effective component of faculty development
programs? Research in Higher Education, 26(3), 311–326.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992243
BOICE, R., & JOHNSON, K. (1984). Perception and Practice of Writing for
Publication by Faculty at a Doctoral-Granting University. Research in
Higher Education, 21(1), 33-43. Retrieved June 11, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40195600
BRAUN, V., & CLARKE, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.
1191/1478088706qp063oa
BRAUN, V., & CLARKE, V. (2019). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data
saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size
rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2),
201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846
BUSH, D., CADMAN, C., DE LACEY, P., SIMMONS, D., & THURSTUN, J.
(1996). Expectations of academic writing at Australian universities. In
Thurston, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of
the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes,
17(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00013-6
CADMAN, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: A question of
identity? English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(96)00029-4
CAFFARELLA, R. S., & BARNETT, B. G. (2000). Teaching Doctoral Students to
Become Scholarly Writers: The importance of giving and receiving
critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000
CAI, L. J. (2013). Students’ Perceptions of Academic Writing: A Needs Analysis of
EAP in China. Language Education in Asia, 4(1), 5–22.
doi.org/10.5746/leia/13/v4/i1/a2/cai

104
CAMERON, J., NAIRN, K., & HIGGINS, J. (2009). Demystifying academic writing:
Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 269-284.
doi.org/10.1080/03098260902734943
CAN, G., & WALKER, A. (2011). A Model for Doctoral Students’ Perceptions and
Attitudes Toward Written Feedback for Academic Writing. Research in
Higher Education, 52(5), 508–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-
9204-1
CASANAVE, C. P., & HUBBARD, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing
problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues,
and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 33–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(92)90005-u
CELCE-MURCIA, M. (1991). Discourse analysis and grammar instruction. In Hinkel,
E. (2013). Research Findings on Teaching Grammar for Academic
Writing. English Teaching, 68(4), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.4. 201312.3
CHAFE, W., & TANNEN, D. (1987). The Relation between Written and Spoken
Language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383-407. Retrieved
June 11, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155877
CHEN, Y. M. (2002). The problems of university EFL writing in Taiwan. The Korea
TESOL Journal, 5(1), 59–79. https://mail.koreatesol.org/sites/default/
files/pdf_publications/KTJ5-2002web.pdf#page=67
CHOKWE, J. M. (2013). Factors Impacting Academic Writing Skills of English
Second Language Students. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
4(14), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p377
CHOU, L. H. (2011). An Investigation of Taiwanese Doctoral Students' Academic
Writing at a US University. Higher Education Studies, 1(2), 47-60.
doi.org/10.5539/hes.v1n2p47
CLYNE, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English
and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211-241. doi.org/10.1016/
0378-2166(87)90196-2

105
COLLINS, J. C. (2015). Writing for Publication While in Graduate School: An
Accessible Reality. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development, 27(1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.
20094
COOLEY, L., & LEWKOWICZ, J. (1995). The Writing Needs of Postgraduate
Students at the University of Hong Kong: A Project Report. Hong Kong
Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 121–125. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED390255.pdf
CUMMING, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions.
Language Testing, 7(1), 31-51. doi.org/10.1177%2F02655322900070
0104
DANIATI, E., & NUGROHO, A. (2016). K-Means clustering with Decision Support
System using SAW: Determining thesis topic. 2016 6th IEEE
International Conference on Control System, Computing and
Engineering (ICCSCE). doi:10.1109/iccsce.2016.7893593
DAOUD, S. A. (1998). How to motivate EFL learning and teaching of academic
writing by cross-cultural exchanges. English for Specific Purposes,
17(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00024-0
DAR, M. F., & KHAN, I. (2015). Writing Anxiety Among Public and Private Sectors
Pakistani Undergraduate University Students. Pakistan Journal of
Gender Studies, 10(1), 157. doi.org/10.46568/pjgs.v10i1.232
DASTJERDI, H. V., & SAMIAN, S. H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners’
argumentative essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 65–76. https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Hossein-Vahid-Dastjerdi/publication/285001233_Quality_of_
Iranian_EFL_Learners%27_Argumentative_Essays_Cohesive_Devices_i
n_Focus/links/54b515f20cf26833efd06482/Quality-of-Iranian-EFL-
Learners-Argumentative-Essays-Cohesive-Devices-in-Focus.pdf
DEMIRÇIVI, K. A. (2020). Personal factors predicting EFL Learners’ writing anxiety.
Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(4), 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.18844/gjflt.v10i4.5104

106
DONG, Y. R. (1998). Non-native Graduate Students’ Thesis/Dissertation Writing in
Science: Self-reports by Students and Their Advisors from Two U.S.
Institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369–390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00054-9
ESCHHOLZ, P. A. (1980). The prose models approach: Using products in the process.
In Donovan, T., & McClelland, B. (1981). Eight Approaches to Teaching
Composition. The English Journal, 70(3), 74.
https://doi.org/10.2307/816871
EYRES, S. J., HATCH, D. H., TURNER, S. B., & WEST, M. (2001). Doctoral
Students’ Responses to Writing Critique: Messages for Teachers. Journal
of Nursing Education, 40(4), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.3928 /0148-
4834-20010401-04
EYSENCK, M. W., & KEANE, M. T. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s
Handbook (7th ed.). Psychology Press. http://lib.stikes-mw.id/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/Cognitive-Psychology_-A-
Student%E2%80%99s-Handbook-PDFDrive.com-.pdf
FAIGLEY, L., DALY, J., & WITTE, S. (1981). The Role of Writing Apprehension in
Writing Performance and Competence. The Journal of Educational
Research, 75(1), 16-21. Retrieved June 11, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27539858
FERGUSON, T. (2009). The ‘Write’ Skills and More: A Thesis Writing Group for
Doctoral Students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2),
285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260902734968
FLAHERTY, J., & CHOI, H.-S. (2013). Is writing important for graduate success? A
preliminary investigation into the communication skills required of
Hospitality and Tourism graduates. Teaching and Learning Innovations
Journal, 16, 1–9. https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php
/tli/article/view/2793
FLOWERDEW, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation,
and the nonnative‐English‐speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1),
127-150. dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588099

107
GARDNER, S. A., SALTO, L. M., RIGGS, M. L., CASIANO, C. A., & DE LEON,
M. (2018). Supporting the Writing Productivity of Biomedical Graduate
Students: An Integrated, Structured Writing Intervention. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 17(3), ar45. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0350
GAY, G. (2013). Teaching to and Through Cultural Diversity. Curriculum Inquiry,
43(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002
GILMORE, J., STRICKLAND, D., TIMMERMAN, B., MAHER, M., & FELDON,
D. (2010). Weeds in the flower garden: An exploration of plagiarism in
graduate students’ research proposals and its connection to enculturation,
ESL, and contextual factors. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 6(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.21913/ijei.v6i1.673
GOMEZ, J. (2014). Teaching EFL academic writing. Language Education in
Asia, 5(1), 151-159.
GOODY, J., & WATT, I. (1963). The Consequences of Literacy. Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 5(3), 304-345. Retrieved September 13,
2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/177651
GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. R. (2000). The Role of Self-Regulation and
Transcription Skills in Writing and Writing Development. Educational
Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3501_2
GRANT, B., & KNOWLES, S. (2000). Flights of imagination: Academic women be
(com) ing writers. International Journal for Academic
Development, 5(1), 6-19. doi.org/10.1080/136014400410060
GREEN, J., & OXFORD, R. (1995). A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2
Proficiency, and Gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
doi:10.2307/3587625
GREENE, J., CARACELLI, V., & GRAHAM, W. (1989). Toward a Conceptual
Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. doi:10.2307/1163620
HALBERT, K. (2015). Students’ perceptions of a ‘quality’ advisory relationship.
Quality in Higher Education, 21(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13538322.2015.1049439

108
HALE, G., TAYLOR, C., BRIDGEMAN, B., CARSON, J., KROLL, B., &
KANTOR, R. (1995). A Study of Writing Tasks Assigned in Academic
Degree Programs. ETS Research Report Series, 1995(2), i–61.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1995.tb01678.x
HARRINGTON, K. (2018). Harness the power of groups to beat the ‘PhD blues.’
Nature, 559(7712), 143–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05589-
w
HARWOOD, N., AUSTIN, L., & MACAULAY, R. (2012). Cleaner, helper, teacher?
The role of proofreaders of student writing. Studies in Higher Education,
37(5), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.5314 62
HASS, S. (2011). A Writer Development Group for Master’s Students: Procedures and
Benefits. Journal of Academic Writing, 1(1), 88–99.
https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v1i1.25
HAYES, J. R., & FLOWER, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American
Psychologist, 41(10), 1106–1113. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-
066x.41.10.1106
HE, T. H. (2005). Effects of Mastery and Performance Goals on the Composition
Strategy Use of Adult EFL Writers. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 61(3), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.3.407
HEMMINGS, B. C., RUSHBROOK, P., & SMITH, E. (2007). Academics’ views on
publishing refereed works: A content analysis. Higher Education, 54(2),
307-332. doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-8608-x
HEMMINGS, B., & KAY, R. (2010). Research self‐efficacy, publication output, and
early career development. International Journal of Educational
Management, 24(7), 562–574. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011079
978
HIRVELA, A., & DU, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL
writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005
HOLMES, B., WATERBURY, T., BALTRINIC, E., & DAVIS, A. (2018). Angst
About Academic Writing: Graduate Students at The Brink.
Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 11(2), 67–72.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ cier.v11i2.10149

109
HOLMES, K. P. (2003). Show, don't tell: The importance of explicit prewriting
instruction. The Clearing House, 76(5), 241-243. doi.org/10.1080/00098
650309602012
HOWARD, R. M., SERVISS, T., & RODRIGUE, T. K. (2010). Writing from Sources,
Writing from Sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 177–192.
https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.177
HSIAO, T. Y., & OXFORD, R. L. (2002). Comparing Theories of Language Learning
Strategies: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The Modern Language
Journal, 86(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155
HSU, H. Y., & WANG, S. K. (2017). Integrating Technology: Using Google Forms
to Collect and Analyze Data. Science Scope, 40(8), 64–67.
https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss17_040_08_64
HUERTA, M., GOODSON, P., BEIGI, M., & CHLUP, D. (2017). Graduate students
as academic writers: writing anxiety, self-efficacy, and emotional
intelligence. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(4), 716-
729. doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238881
HYLAND, F. (2001). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. ELT
Journal, 55(4), 375-381. doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.4.375
HYLAND, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8),
1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00035-8
HYLAND, K. (2006). The ‘other’English: thoughts on EAP and academic writing.
The European English Messenger, 15(2), 34–38.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1090.2127&rep=rep1&type=pdf
IIDA, A. (2010). Developing Voice by Composing Haiku: A Social-Expressivist
Approach for Teaching Haiku Writing in EFL Contexts. English
Teaching Forum, 48(1), 28–34. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ914
886.pdf
IMANI, A., & HABIL, H. (2012). NNS Postgraduate Students’ Academic Writing:
Problem-solving Strategies and Grammatical Features. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbs
pro.2012.11.290

110
IRVIN, L. L. (2010). What Is “Academic” Writing? Writing Spaces: Readings on
Writing, 1, 3-17. http://foodwritingspring2015.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/fi
les/2015/01/irvin-what-is-academic-writing.pdf
ITUA, I., COFFEY, M., MERRYWEATHER, D., NORTON, L., & FOXCROFT, A.
(2014). Exploring barriers and solutions to academic writing: Perspectives
from students, higher education and further education tutors. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 38(3), 305–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x. 2012.726966
IVANKOVA, N. V., CRESWELL, J. W., & STICK, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-
Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field
Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260
KANDLBINDER, P. & PESETA, T. (2001). In supervisor’s words: an insider’s view
of postgraduate supervision. In Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing
postgraduate supervision practice: A programme to encourage learning
through reflection and feedback: Journal of the association for
programmed learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 41(1), 5-22. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/
scholarly-journals/changing-postgraduate-supervision-practice/docview
/210666974/se-2?accountid=14553
KECK, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and
L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006
KECK, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-
examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 25, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005
KEH, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for
implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/
elt/44.4.294
KELLOGG, R. T. (2001). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory
& Cognition, 29(1), 43-52. dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195739
KENNEDY, M. L. (1985). The Composing Process of College Students Writing from
Sources. Written Communication, 2(4), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0741088385002004006

111
KHAN, I. A. (2011). Learning difficulties in English: Diagnosis and pedagogy in
Saudi Arabia. Educational Research, 2(7), 1248-1257. Retrieved from
https://www.interesjournals.org/educational-research.html
KIEFT, M., RIJLAARSDAM, G., & VAN DEN BERGH, H. (2006). Writing as a
learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 17–34.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173567
KILGORE, C. D., CRONLEY, C., & AMEY, B. (2013). Developing grass roots
writing resources: a novel approach to writing within the social work
discipline. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), 920–932.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827647
KOKALIARI, E. D., BRAINERD, M., & ROY, A. (2012). A Longitudinal Study of
Assessing APA Writing Competence at a BSW Program. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 32(5), 566–577.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233. 2012.725706
KORNHABER, R., CROSS, M., BETIHAVAS, V., & BRIDGMAN, H. (2016). The
benefits and challenges of academic writing retreats: an integrative review.
Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1210–1227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572
LABAREE, R. V. (2009). Research Guides: Organizing Your Social Sciences
Research Paper: Academic Writing Style. Retrieved from
https://libguides.usc. edu/c.php?g=235034&p=1559822
LAMBIE, G. W., SIAS, S. M., DAVIS, K. M., LAWSON, G., & AKOS, P. (2008). A
scholarly writing resource for counselor educators and their
students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(1), 18-25.
doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00621.x
LARCOMBE, W., MCCOSKER, A., & O’LOUGHLIN, K. (2007). Supporting
education PhD and DEd students to become confident academic writers:
An evaluation of thesis writers’ circles. Journal of University Teaching
and Learning Practice, 4(1), 54–63. Retrieved from
https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/ vol4/iss1/6/
LAVELLE, E., & BUSHROW, K. (2007). Writing Approaches of Graduate Students.
Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410701366001

112
LEE, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors in English as a Foreign
Language Writing Performance: A Model Testing with Structural
Equation Modeling. Language Learning, 55(2), 335–374.
doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00306.x
LEECH, B. (2002). Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. PS:
Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 665-668. Retrieved June 11, 2021,
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1554805
LEKI, I. (1995). Coping Strategies of ESL Students in Writing Tasks across the
Curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 235-260. doi:10.2307/3587624
LEMING, J. S. (1977). Doctoral programs as preparation for what? In Lavelle, E., &
Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing Approaches of Graduate Students.
Educational Psychology, 27(6), 807–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410701366001
LENSMIRE, T. J., & BEALS, D. E. (1994). Appropriating others’ words: Traces of
literature and peer culture in a third-grader’s writing. Language in
Society, 23(3), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500018042
LI, L. Y. (2007). Exploring the use of focused freewriting in developing academic
writing. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 4(1), 40–
53. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context
=jutlp
LI, Y., & CASANAVE, C. P. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing
from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002
LIAO, P. (2006). EFL Learners’ Beliefs about and Strategy Use of Translation in
English Learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0033688206067428
LILLIS, T., & TURNER, J. (2001). Student Writing in Higher Education:
Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher
Education, 6(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510020029608
LIU, M. (2013). Blended Learning in a University EFL Writing Course: Description
and Evaluation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2),
301–309. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.2.301-309

113
LUNSFORD, A., & LUNSFORD, K. (2008). "Mistakes Are a Fact of Life": A
National Comparative Study. College Composition and
Communication, 59(4), 781-806. Retrieved August 8, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/ stable/20457033
MACBETH, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of
models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 19(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.08.002
MACINTYRE, P. D., & GARDNER, R. C. (1994). The Subtle Effects of Language
Anxiety on Cognitive Processing in the Second Language. Language
Learning, 44(2), 283–305. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x
MAGUIRE, M. H. (2011). A Missing Dimension in Multicultralism in Higher
Education: The Marginalization of International Students' voices and
Writing Identities. Canadian Issues, 35-40.
MAHMOOD, K. (2020). Academic writing challenges of EFL learners and teachers'
proficiency in pakistani higher education. Journal of Research in Social
Sciences, 8(2), 56-76. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/
scholarly-journals/academic-writing-challenges-efl-learners-teachers/doc
view/2474916339/se-2?accountid=14553
MAHN, H (2008). A dialogic approach to teaching L2 writing. In J. Lantolf & M.
Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second
languages (pp.115-138). London: Equinox Publishing.
MALLETT, S. (2004). Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature. The
Sociological Review, 52(1), 62–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
954x.2004.00442.x
MANDERNACH, B. J., ZAFONTE, M., & TAYLOR, C. (2016). Instructional
Strategies to Improve College Students’ APA Style Writing.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
27(3), 407–412. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1093747.pdf
MANSOURIZADEH, K., & AHMAD, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-
native expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 10(3), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.
2011.03.004

114
MARSHALL, S., & GARRY, M. (2006). NESB and ESB students’ attitudes and
perceptions of plagiarism. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 2(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.21913/ijei.v2i1.25
MARTINEZ, C. T., KOCK, N., & CASS, J. (2011). Pain and Pleasure in Short Essay
Writing: Factors Predicting University Students’ Writing Anxiety and
Writing Self-Efficacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5),
351–360. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.54.5.5
MATSUDA, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A
situated historical perspective. Exploring the Dynamics of Second
Language Writing, 15–34. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524810.004
MATSUMOTO, K. (1995). Research Paper Writing Strategies of Professional
Japanese EFL Writers. TESL Canada Journal, 13(1), 17.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v13i1.658
MATTERN, K. D., & SHAW, E. J. (2010). A Look Beyond Cognitive Predictors of
Academic Success: Understanding the Relationship Between Academic
Self-Beliefs and Outcomes. Journal of College Student Development,
51(6), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0017
MCGRAIL, M. R., RICKARD, C. M., & JONES, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A
systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication
rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19-35.
doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053
MCINTOSH, M. J., & MORSE, J. M. (2015). Situating and Constructing Diversity in
Semi-Structured Interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–
12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615597674
MCKAY, S. (1981). A Focus on Pre-Writing Strategies. On TESOL, 89–95.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.959.6735&rep
=rep1&type=pdf#page=89
MCKEE-WADDELL, S. (2015). Digital Literacy: Bridging the Gap with Digital
Writing Tools. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin., 82(1).
https://doi.org/info:doi/
MCLEOD, S. (1987). Some Thoughts about Feelings: The Affective Domain and the
Writing Process. College Composition and Communication, 38(4), 426-
435. doi:10.2307/357635

115
MONTGOMERY, J. L., & BAKER, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student
perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher
performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
MORRISON, B., & EVANS, S. (2018). Supporting non-native speaker student writers
making the transition from school to an English-medium university.
Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2018-0001
MORSE, J. M., & CHEEK, J. (2014). Making Room for Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-
Method Research. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 3–5.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313513656
MOSES, I. (1992). Good Supervisory Practice. In Holdaway, E. (1995). Supervision
of Graduate Students. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 1–
29. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ523117.pdf
MULLEN, C. A. (2006). Best Writing Practices for Graduate Students: Reducing the
Discomfort of the Blank Screen. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43(1), 30–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516456
MUNOZ-LUNA, R. (2015). Main Ingredients for Success in L2 Academic Writing:
Outlining, Drafting and Proofreading. PLOS ONE, 10(6), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128309
MURRAY, R., & NEWTON, M. (2009). Writing retreat as structured intervention:
margin or mainstream? Higher Education Research & Development,
28(5), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903154126
MYLES, J. (2002). Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and
Error Analysis in Student Texts. Tesl-Ej, 6(2), 1. Retrieved from
http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej22/ej22a1/?wscr
NEVILLE, C. (2012). Referencing: principles, practice and problems. RGUHS J
Pharm Sci, 2(2), 1–8.
NOONE, J., & YOUNG, H. M. (2019). Creating a Community of Writers: Participant
Perception of the Impact of a Writing Retreat on Scholarly Productivity.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 35(1), 65–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2018.07.006

116
NOOR, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and
achievements. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 255-269. doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-2166(99)00136-8
OFFSTEIN, E. H., LARSON, M. B., MCNEILL, A. L., & MWALE, H. M. (2004).
Are we doing enough for today’s graduate student? International Journal
of Educational Management, 18(7), 396–407.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540410563103
ONG, J. (2011). Investigating the Use of Cohesive Devices by Chinese EFL Learners.
Asian EFL Journal, 42–65. http://70.40.196.162/PDF/ September-
2011.pdf#page=42
ONWUEGBUZIE, A. J. (1997). Writing a research proposal: The role of library
anxiety, statistics anxiety, and composition anxiety. Library &
Information Science Research, 19(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0740-8188(97)90003-7
PAJARES, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158.
doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
PAJARES, F., & JOHNSON, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing:
The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension.
Research in the Teaching of English, 313-331. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.com/stable/40171341
PALTRIDGE, B. (1997). Thesis and dissertation writing: Preparing ESL students for
research. English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(96)00028-2
PALTRIDGE, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published
advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 125–
143. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00025-9
PAPEN, U., & THÉRIAULT, V. (2017). Writing retreats as a milestone in the
development of PhD students’ sense of self as academic writers. Studies
in Continuing Education, 40(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
158037x.2017.1396973
PETRAGLIA, J. (1996). Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. In
Petraglia, J. (Ed.). (2013). Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing
Instruction. Routledge.

117
PETRAGLIA, J. (Ed.). (2013). Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing
Instruction. Routledge.
PETRIC, B. (2002). Students' Attitudes Towards Writing and the Development of
Academic Writing Skills. The Writing Center Journal, 22(2), 9-27.
Retrieved September 17, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
43442147
PETRIĆ, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master’s
theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238–253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.002
PINETEH, E. A. (2014). The academic writing challenges of undergraduate students:
A south african case study. International Journal of Higher
Education 3(1), 12-22. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/
docview/1720059795?accountid=14553
PLAKHOTNIK, M. S., & ROCCO, T. S. (2012). Implementing Writing Support
Circles with Adult Learners in a Nonformal Education Setting. Adult
Learning, 23(2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159512443507
QIAN, G., & ALVERMANN, D. E. (2000). Relationship Between Epistemological
Beliefs and Conceptual Change Learning. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 16(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600278060
QIAN, J., & KRUGLY-SMOLSKA, E. (2008). Chinese graduate students'
experiences with writing a literature review. TESL Canada Journal, 68-
86. doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i1.391
QUYNN, K., & STEWART, C. (2021). Sustainable writing for graduate students:
writing retreats offer vital support. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2021.1875200
RABABAH, L., & MELHEM, N. B. (2015). Investigation into Strategies of Creativity
in EFL Writing in Jordan. Journal of Literature, Languages and
Linguistics, 5, 14–25. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?
doi=10.1.1.900.3976&rep=rep1&type=pdf
RABADI, R. I., & RABADI, A. D. (2020). Do Medical Students Experience Writing
Anxiety While Learning English as a Foreign Language? Psychology
Research and Behavior Management, 883–893. https://doi.org/
10.2147/prbm.s276448

118
RAIMES, A. (1987). Language Proficiency, Writing Ability, and Composing
Strategies: A Study of ESL College Student Writers*. Language
Learning, 37(3), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
1770.1987.tb00579.x
RANDOLPH, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(1), 1–13.
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&conte
xt=pare
RAOOFI, S., BINANDEH, M., & RAHMANI, S. (2017). An Investigation into
Writing Strategies and Writing Proficiency of University Students.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 191.
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.24
READER, W. R., & PAYNE, S. J. (2007). Allocating time across multiple texts:
Sampling and satisficing. Human–Computer Interaction, 22(3), 263-
298. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020701493376
REZAEI, M., & JAFARI, M. (2014). Investigating the Levels, Types, and Causes of
Writing Anxiety among Iranian EFL Students: A Mixed Method Design.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1545–1554.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.577
RIAZI, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A social-cognitive analysis of text
production and learning among Iranian graduate students of education.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 105–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90030-8
RICHARDS, J. C. (1973). Error analysis. In Singh, C. K. S., Singh, A. K. J., Razak,
N. Q. A., & Ravinthar, T. (2017). Grammar Errors Made by ESL Tertiary
Students in Writing. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 16.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n5p16
ROCA DE LARIOS, J., MANCHON, R., MURPHY, L., & MARIN, J. (2008). The
foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to
writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005

119
SADDLER, B., MORAN, S., GRAHAM, S., & HARRIS, K. (2004). Preventing
Writing Difficulties: The Effects of Planning Strategy Instruction on the
Writing Performance of Struggling Writers. Exceptionality, 12(1), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1201_2
SAMPSEL, L. J., & TAFT, S. A. (2021). Teaching APA Style (Seventh Edition) in
the Graduate Music Bibliography Course. Music Reference Services
Quarterly, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2021.1874199
SEGEV-MILLER, R. (2004). Writing from Sources: The Effect of Explicit Instruction
on College Students’ Processes and Products. L1-Educational Studies in
Language and Literature, 4(1), 5–33.
https://doi.org/10.1023/b:esll.0000033847.00732.af
SHAHSAVAR, Z., & KOUREPAZ, H. (2020). Postgraduate students’ difficulties in
writing their theses literature review. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1784620
SHANG, H. F. (2013). Factors Associated with English as a Foreign Language
University Students Writing Anxiety. International Journal of English
Language Teaching, 1(1), 1–12. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.1077.6761&rep=rep1&type=pdf
SHAW, P. (1991). Science research students' composing processes. English for
specific purposes, 10(3), 189-206. doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90024
-Q
SHELL, D. F., COLVIN, C., & BRUNING, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution,
and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement:
Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87(3), 386. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/00 22-
0663.87.3.386
SHI, L. (2008). Textual Appropriation and Citing Behaviors of University
Undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10
.1093/applin/amn045
SHI, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 134–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

120
SIDMAN-TAVEAU, R., & KARATHANOS-AGUILAR, K. (2015). Academic
Writing for Graduate-Level English as a Second Language Students:
Experiences in Education. The Catesol Journal, 27(1), 27–52. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111748.pdf
SILVA, T. & MATSUDA, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (ed.), An introduction
to applied linguistics. London: Arnold, 252–266
SILVA, T. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing:
The ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-
677. doi:10.2307/3587400
SINGH, C. K. S., JAGEER SINGH, A. K., ABD RAZAK, N. Q., & RAVINTHAR,
T. (2017). Grammar Errors Made by ESL Tertiary Students in Writing.
English Language Teaching, 10(5), 16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v10n5p16
SOMMERS, N. (1980). Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult
Writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378-388.
doi:10.2307/356588
SPACK, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A
longitudinal case study. Written communication, 14(1), 3-62.
doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088397014001001
SPACK, R., & SADOW, C. (1983). Student-Teacher Working Journals in ESL
Freshman Composition. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 575-593.
doi:10.2307/3586614
STAPLETON, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing:
Returning the spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing,
11(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00070-x
STEWART, G., SEIFERT, T. A., & ROLHEISER, C. (2015). Anxiety and Self-
efficacy’s Relationship with Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of the
use of Metacognitive Writing Strategies. The Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.1.4
SUN, Y. C. (2009). Using a two-tier test in examining Taiwan graduate students’
perspectives on paraphrasing strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review,
10(3), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9035-y

121
SUSSER, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-
3743(94)90004-3
SWORD, H., TROFIMOVA, E., & BALLARD, M. (2018). Frustrated academic
writers. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 852–867.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1441811
THOMAS, P. L. (2013). De-Grading Writing Instruction in a Time of High-Stakes
Testing:" The Power of Feedback in Workshop". Counterpoints, 451,
219–238. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/42982094
TORRANCE, M., THOMAS, G. V., & ROBINSON, E. J. (1994). The writing
strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher
Education, 27(3), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03179901
TRAN, L. T. (2010). Embracing prior professional experience in meaning making:
views from international students and academics. Educational Review,
62(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910903548669
TREMBLAY-WRAGG, E., MATHIEU CHARTIER, S., LABONTE-LEMOYNE,
E., DERI, C., & GADBOIS, M. E. (2021). Writing more, better, together:
how writing retreats support graduate students through their journey.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(1), 95–106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2020.1736272
VAN NOTE CHISM, N., & WEERAKOON, S. (2012). PA, Meet Google: Graduate
students’ approaches to learning citation style. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 27–38.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ978905.pdf
VICTORI, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: a case
study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537–
555. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(99)00049-4
VILLAMIL, O. S., & de GUERRERO, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2
classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of
social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(96)90015-6

122
VINCENT, C., TREMBLAY-WRAGG, M., DÉRI, C., PLANTE, I., & MATHIEU
CHARTIER, S. (2021). How writing retreats represent an ideal
opportunity to enhance PhD candidates’ writing self-efficacy and self-
regulation. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13562517.2021.1918661
WANG, M. F., & BAKKEN, L. L. (2004). An academic writing needs assessment of
English‐as‐a‐second‐language clinical investigators. Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 24(3), 181-189.
doi.org/10.1002/chp.1340240309
WANG, W., & WEN, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory
study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,
11(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00084-x
WANG, Y. (2012). Differences in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 2(3), 637–641. https://doi.org/10.4304/
tpls.2.3.637-641
WCG, P. (2008). Writing the introduction. Singapore Med J, 49(10), 756–758.
http://smj.sma.org.sg/4910/4910emw1.pdf
WEST, G. K., & BYRD, P. (1982). Technical Writing Required of Graduate
Engineering Students. Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2190/3m0f-eucv-7j2d-
6njm
WHITLEY, E. A., & GROUS, A. (2009). Academic writing by “international”
students in the internet age: studying diversity in practice. International
Journal of Innovation in Education, 1(1), 12–34. https://doi.org/10.
1504/ijiie.2009.030101
WINSOR, D. (1990). Engineering Writing/Writing Engineering. College
Composition and Communication, 41(1), 58-70. doi:10.2307/357883
YOUNG, T. J., & SCHARTNER, A. (2014). The effects of cross-cultural
communication education on international students' adjustment and
adaptation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 35(6), 547-562. doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.884099
ZAMEL, V. (1976). Teaching Composition in the ESL Classroom: What We Can
Learn from Research in the Teaching of English. TESOL
Quarterly, 10(1), 67-76. doi:10.2307/3585940

123
ZHANG, S., YU, H., & ZHANG, L. J. (2021). Understanding the Sustainable Growth
of EFL Students’ Writing Skills: Differences between Novice and Expert
Writers in Their Use of Lexical Bundles in Academic Writing
Sustainability, 13(10), 5553. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13105553
ZHAO, R., & HIRVELA, A. (2015). Undergraduate ESL students' engagement in
academic reading and writing in learning to write a synthesis
paper. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 219-241. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/undergraduate-esl-students-
engagement-academic/docview/1750503062/se-2?accountid=14553
ZHU, W. (2004a). Writing in business courses: an analysis of assignment types, their
characteristics, and required skills. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2),
111–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(02)00046-7
ZHU, W. (2004b). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic
writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal
of second language Writing, 13(1), 29-48.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.004

DISSERTATIONS

AKÇAOĞLU, M. Ö. (2011). An assessment of academic writing needs of graduate

students. (Unpublished MA Thesis), Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, 1–94. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1
.634.238&rep=rep1&type=pdf

ALSAEDI, N. S. (2017). Saudi doctoral students' experiences with dissertation writing

in the U.S.: Challenges and strategies (Order No. 10633152). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1937913045). Retrieved
from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/saudi-doctoral-
students-experiences-with/docview/1937913045/se-2?accountid=14553
AL-SHABANAH, A. I. (2005). Summarization strategies adopted by the senior level
female students of the Department of English at King Saud University.
(Master's thesis). Retrieved from https://awej.org/images/Theseanddis
sertation/AsmaIbrahimAlshabanah/asmafullthesis.pdf

124
BEARE, S. (2000). Differences in content generating and planning processes of adult
L1 and L2 proficient writers. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation), University
of Ottawa, 1–118. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/8515/1/NQ570
19.PDF
MOLINARI, J. (2019). What makes writing academic: An educational and
philosophical response (Doctoral dissertation), University of Nottingham.
YAĞIZ, O. (2009). The Academic Writing of Turkish Graduate Students in Social
Sciences: Approaches, Processes, Needs and Challenges. (PhD). Atatürk
University, 1–167. https://www.atauni.edu.tr/yuklemeler/854fce9ddc9a
0b82806961a708972d1e.pdf

125
126
APPENDICES

Appendix A. ESL/EFL Graduate Students Academic Writing Difficulties

Appendix B. EFL Graduate Students Semi-Structured Interview

Appendix C. Open-Ended Questionnaire with Faculty Members

Appendix D. Questionnaire and Semi-Structured Interviews Approval

Appendix E. Interview Consent Form

Appendix F. Open-Ended Questionnaire with Faculty Members Approval

Appendix G. Results Collected and Analyzed from Online Questionnaire and Semi-
Structured Interviews

Appendix H. Extract from The Research Codes

127
128
Appendix A

ESL/EFL Graduate Students Academic Writing Difficulties (Adopted from Al-

Badi, 2015)

Section one: Biodata

Date: ------------------------------

1. Gender:

☐ Male

☐ Female

☐ Prefer not to say

2. Age:
☐ 20-25

☐ 26- 30
☐ 31-35

☐ 36- 40
☐ 41 and above
3. State your level of English:
☐ pre-intermediate

☐ Intermediate
☐ Upper-intermediate

☐ Advanced
☐ Native Speaker

4. Nationality: -----------------------------

5. First language: --------------------------

129
Appendix A (Cont.)

Section Two: How often do these statements apply to you when writing
assignments? Put a tick ( ) in the suitable column.

Always Usually Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Items
(100%) (80%) (60%) (40%) (20%) (0%)
1. I write for pleasure in English in my free time.
2. I go back to check carefully the assignment
requirements and instructions.
3. I ask my teacher about the points I am not sure
about, or I need help with.
4. I discuss what I am going to write with other
students.
5. I brainstorm and write down ideas about the
topic.
6. I make an outline including the main points of
my assignment.
7. I go back to my writing to revise the content
and make my ideas clearer.
8. I go back to my writing to edit the grammar,
vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation.
9. In my assignments, in general, I pay more
attention to the language (e.g., spelling, grammar,
vocabulary) than to the content (e.g. ideas,
organization).
10. I pay more attention to the content (e.g.,
ideas, organization) than the language (e.g.
spelling, grammar, vocabulary).
11. I give almost equal attention to both the
language (e.g. spelling, grammar, vocabulary)
and the content (e.g. ideas, organization).
12. I discuss my work with other students to get
feedback on how I can improve it.

130
Appendix A (Cont.)

Section 3: Students' attitudes towards writing assignments in English and the

sources they like to use

1. In general, you find writing assignments in English:

☐ Easy
☐ Difficult

☐ Very difficult
☐ Neither difficult nor easy
2. The reference(s) you mostly use:
☐ Books

☐Journals
☐Both

☐Others (specify)

Section four: Put a tick next to the weaknesses or/and difficulties you have faced
when writing your assignments:

☐ Paraphrasing

☐ Language use

☐ Expressing own voice

☐ Finding relevant references

☐ Referencing & citation

☐ Coherence & cohesion

☐ Choosing a significant topic

☐ Others (specify)

131
132
Appendix B

EFL Graduate Students Semi-Structured Interview

The purpose of this study is to investigate EFL master’s graduate students

perceived reported experiences with academic writing challenges. The interview will
take approximately 30-45 minutes. The structure of the interview is semi-structured
interview; that is, follow-up questions might be asked during the interview based on
students’ response.

Section one: background information

- How long have you been studying English?

- How many writing courses have you taken?

Section two: reported experiences of ESL students regarding academic writing

challenges

- Do you like writing? How do you feel about your writing skills?

- Have you ever faced any challenges during your writing practices? What
are/were they?

- Do you think the teachers’ feedback is helpful for your writing improvements?

Section three: recommendations of/for writing students

- Are you interested in taking writing courses (if you were to choose)? Why?

- Do you think writing courses are important for graduate students? Elaborate.

Section four: coping with academic writing difficulties

- What do you do when you have difficulty during your courses?

- What strategies did you use to overcome your difficulties in writing courses?
Were they useful? Why?

Section five: feedback/questions

- Do you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the topics we

discussed?

133
134
Appendix C

Open-ended questionnaire: Faculty members perceptions on graduate students

academic writing and coping strategies

Section one: Biodata

1. Gender:

☐ Female
☐ Male

2.Age:

☐ 31-35
☐ 36-40
☐ 41 and above

3.State your years of teaching experience:

☐ 10-15
☐ 16-20
☐ 20 and above

4.First Language: -----------------------------------

Section two: Faculty members perception

1. What is your perception of your supervisees’ regarding the most pervasive

academic writing skills deficits among graduate students? Give one example, at
least, please
2. What aspects of your supervisees’ academic writing are strong or weak
when they are asked to write academically? Put the following items in order
from the most problematic to the least:

Item Order
1. Level of English proficiency
2. Synthesis of information
3. Building arguments and claims
4. Control of academic writing style
5. Use of source material
6. Cohesive devices
7. Vocabulary
8. Punctuation

135
Appendix C (Cont.)

3. Do you recommend/suggest any strategies and/or methods that your

supervisees/students should apply to minimize and/or overcome their writing
difficulties?

136
Appendix D

Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews approval

Evrak Tarih ve Sayısı: 05.01.2021-292

T.C.
İSTANBUL AYDIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ REKTÖRLÜĞÜ
Personel Daire Başkanlığı

Sayı : E-54167746-300-292
Konu : Khaled A. H. Alustath KHALED A. H.
ALOSTATH'ın Anket Onayı hk.

LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM ENSTİTÜSÜ MÜDÜRLÜĞÜNE

Enstitünüz Y1812.020009 numaralı İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı İngiliz Dili ve
Edebiyatı Tezli Yüksek Lisans programı öğrencilerinden Khaled A. H. Alustath KHALED A. H.
ALOSTATH'ın "Graduate Students' Challenges in Academic Writing" adlı tez çalışması gereği anket
sorularını Üniversitemiz öğrencilerine uygulaması talebiniz uygun görülmüştür.
Bilgilerinizi ve gereğini rica ederim.

Prof. Dr. Yadigar İZMİRLİ

Rektör

Ek:Khaled A. H. Alustath KHALED A. H. ALOSTATH'ın Anket Onayı hk. (45 sayfa)

Bu belge, güvenli elektronik imza ile imzalanmıştır.

Belge Doğrulama Kodu : *BEL93HA5K* Pin Kodu : 98791 Belge Takip Adresi :
https://evrakdogrula.aydin.edu.tr/enVision.Dogrula/BelgeDogrulama.aspx?
Adres : Beşyol Mah. İnönü Cad. No:38 Sefaköy , 34295 Küçükçekmece / İSTANBUL Bilgi için : Mihrican ÖZDİNÇER
Telefon : 444 1 428 Unvanı : Uzman
Web : http://www.aydin.edu.tr/ Tel No : 65006
Kep Adresi : iau.yaziisleri@iau.hs03.kep.tr

137
138
Appendix E

Interview Consent Form

Study aim:

The purpose of this study is to investigate ESL/EFL graduate students perceived

reported experience with academic writing challenges. The interview will take
approximately 30-45 minutes. The structure of the interview is semi-structured; that
is, follow-up questions might be asked during the interview based on participants’
responses. We don’t anticipate that there are any risks associated with your
participation, but you have the right to stop the interview or withdraw from the
research at any time.

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed as part of the above research project.
This consent form is necessary to ensure that you understand the purpose of your
involvement and that you agree to the conditions of your participation. Would you
therefore read the accompanying information sheet and then sign this form to certify
that you approve the following:

1. the interview will be recorded, and a transcript will be produced

2. you will be sent the transcript and given the opportunity to correct any factual
errors
3. the transcript of the interview will be analyzed by Khaled Alostath as research
investigator
4. access to the interview transcript will be limited to Khaled Alostath and/or
any academic researchers with whom he might collaborate as part of the
research process
5. any summary interview content, or direct quotations from the interview, that
are made available through academic publication or other academic outlets will
be anonymized so that you cannot be identified, and care will be taken to ensure
that other information in the interview that could identify yourself is not
revealed
6. the actual recording will be destroyed
7. any variation of the conditions above will only occur with your further explicit
approval

139
Appendix E (Cont.)

Quotation Agreement

I also understand that my words may be quoted directly. With regards to being
quoted, please initial next to any of the statements that you agree with:

I wish to review the notes, transcripts, or other data collected during the
research pertaining to my participation.
I agree to be quoted directly.

I agree to be quoted directly if my name is not published and a made-up

name (pseudonym) is used.

I agree that the researchers may publish documents that contain quotations
by me.

By signing this form, I agree that;

1. I am voluntarily taking part in this project. I understand that I don’t have to

take part, and I can stop the interview at any time;
2. The transcribed interview or extracts from it may be used as described above;
3. I have read the information sheet.
4. I can request a copy of the transcript of my interview and may make edits I
feel necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any agreement made about
confidentiality;
5. I have been able to ask any questions I might have, and I understand that I am
free to contact the researcher with any questions I may have in the future.

Participant name:

Signature:

140
Appendix F

Open-ended questionnaire with faculty members approval

141
142
Appendix G

Results collected and analyzed from online questionnaire and semi-structured

interviews

Dear faculty members,

My name is Khaled Alostath, and I am a graduate student at the English

Language and Literature department at IAU. For the final phase of my thesis, I am
examining your perception of graduate students' academic writing practices, your
conceptions of the most problematic features in students’ writing practices, and your
recommendations to minimize these difficulties.

I am inviting you to participate in this research study by completing the attached

open-ended questionnaire. The open-ended questionnaire will take between 5 to 7
minutes to complete. There is no compensation for responding nor there is any risk. If
you choose to participate in this project, answer all the questions as honestly as you
can, please.

For a better understanding of students’ academic writing challenges and

problems, I have included a summary of the initial findings of data collected from
students via (Online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews).

If you are not comfortable using the word document and prefer to share your
perspective anonymously, please click on the link below to go to Google Surveys (or
copy and paste the link into your browser).

Thank you for taking the time to assist me in my educational journey. The
collected data will be of great importance to advance the literature of academic writing
and finding solutions to the obstacles that impede students’ scholarly writing. If you
require any further information or if you have any questions, feel free to contact me at
the email/phone number listed below.

Survey link: https://forms.gle/DomozL46vuLz7Skk9

Results collected and analyzed from online questionnaire and semi-structured

interviews

- Quantitative data

143
Appendix G (Cont.)

The participants in the online questionnaire were 28 graduate students from the
English Language and Literature department at IAU. Participants shared their
perspectives on their academic writing practices and the difficulties they encounter
when they are asked to write academically.

In Table G1, graduate students share their perception towards academic writing
assignments in English. The initial findings of the questionnaire as shown in Table 1
exhibited that a great percentage of graduate students (53.6%) reported that they find
academic writing easy; however, the number of graduate students who reported that
English is neither difficult nor easy was (39.3%). The rest of the respondents (7.1%)
stated that writing academically in English is difficult.

Table G1. Graduate Students Attitudes towards Writing Assignments in English

N %

Easy 15 53.6%

Difficult 2 7.1%

Very difficult 00 00%

Neither difficult nor easy 11 39.3%

Total 28 100%

However, in G 2, participants were asked to report the major problems they face
in academic writing. They have been given eight problems and weaknesses and were
asked to check what they find problematic when they write academically. The given
choices problems/weaknesses were paraphrasing, language use, expressing one voice,
referencing and citation, cohesion and coherence, and others.

144
Appendix G (Cont.)

Table G2. The Frequency of Problems/Difficulties Students Face in Academic Writing

Responses
N Percent
Q. Put a tick next to Paraphrasing 8 19.5%
the weaknesses Language use 4 9.8%
or/and difficulties Expressing own voice 8 19.5%
you have faced Referencing & citation 12 29.3%
when writing your
Coherence & cohesion 7 17.1%
assignments (Check
all that applies). Other 2 4.9%
Total 41 100.0%

As stated above in G2, the great majority of students (29.3%) struggle in

refereeing and citation while paraphrasing and expressing their own voice came in
second with (19.5%) each. Graduate students reported that the third frequent problem
they have is concerned with writing a coherent and cohesion text (17.1%) while four
students found the usage of language problematic (9.8%). The other problems (4.9%)
that students reported were anxiety and lack of command in vocabulary.

- Qualitative data

The initial coding of the semi-structured interviews revealed that there are
significant problems in graduate students' academic writing that impede them from
meeting the requirements of scholarly writing and the expectations of graduate school.
The major categories of data included “Academic writing as a major struggle”,
“supervisor’s relationship”, “socioeconomic obstacles” and “language problems.

In G3, I present the themes and subthemes that I have detected and results from
the interviews.

145
Appendix G (Cont.)

Table G3. Themes and Subthemes Emerged from the Semi-Structured Interviews with
Participants

Themes
Academic writing as a major struggle
Supervisor’s relationship
Socioeconomic obstacles
Language problems
Subthemes
- Lack of understanding the concept and demands
of academic writing
- Choosing a good thesis topic
- Ambiguity in academic writing stages
- Lack of resources
- Poor academic writing skills
- Lack of critical thinking
- Poor mechanical conventions (e.g., APA style)
- Difficulty in research methodologies (Qual, Quan,
Mixed methods)
- Difficulty using analysis software (e.g. SPSS)
- Plagiarism
- Difficulty writing some parts/chapters of
academic assignment (e.g., literature review)
- Lack of prep academic writing course
- Supervisors’ lack of interest in students’ chosen
topic.
- Lack of [corrective] feedback.
- Unresponsive supervisor
- Inadequate support from supervisor
- Unfamiliarity with the topic of choice
- Too busy supervisor or unavailable
- Difficulty reaching out to the supervisor
- No feedback at all
- Work pressure
- Busy life
- Family commitment
- Unemployment
- COVID-19
- Stress, anxiety, depression
- Financial issues
- Time management
- Motivation
- Poor vocabulary usage
- Unconventional grammar usage
- Problems in sentence structure and word order
- Difficulty organizing paragraphs
- Poor usage of connection and transitions
- Sentence level problems (e.g., repetitive words,
L1/L2 interaction, fragment sentences,

146
Appendix H

Extract from the research codes

147
148
 RESUME

Name Surname: Khaled A. H. Alostath

EDUCATION
Istanbul Aydin University Turkey/Istanbul
- Master’s degree (Yuksek lisans) in English language and Literature
August 2018 – August 2021
• Graduate Students’ Challenges in Academic Writing (MA
Thesis)

Gaza University Palestine/Gaza

- Graduated with B.A. in English Language and Translation
January 2014 – May 2017
- Chairman and EFL conversation club leader, English translation club, 2014-
2016
- Event organizer and translator, Peace Message 2 Museum
- Lab assistant, 2015

EXPERIENCE

English Time Feb 2021 – May 2021

EFL teacher
- Teaching A1 level students
- Mentoring and assessing their progress on weekly basis
- Planning lessons beyond the coursebook

American Culture Language School Oct 2019 – Sep 2020

EFL teacher
- Planning and delivering lessons
- Preparing teaching materials
- Checking and assessing student’s work
- IELTS preparation lessons

Mosaic Theater Company of DC Jun 2017 – Jul 2017

Intern/Company Management
- Assist with daily administrative duties.
- Research and evaluate digital content.
- Collaborate with staff on new ideas, directions, and venues for communication.

149
United Palestinian Appeal Feb 2017 – Apr 2017
Transcriptionist/ Translator
- Work on a book about Gaza with Professor Brian Barber
- Translating articles and essays about major topics in the book as assigned.
- Research assistance.
- Location: Washington DC, USA

Embassy English Center Oct 2016 – Mar 2017

Instructor
- Lead small-group classes in English language conversation and skills
- Teaching reading
- Mentor other teachers.

Al-Amal Institute for Orphans Dec 2015 – Nov 2016

Program Director, Reading Stars of Gaza
- Founded program to teach English speaking and writing skills to
approximately 20 boys in grades 2– 6
- Coordinate donations of supplies
- Recruit volunteers for the program
- Conduct story reading and related learning activities
- Help children with learning disorders and trauma adjust to their life situation,
obtain confidence, and set goals.
- Prepare English Teaching materials for the classroom and provide feedback.
- Sponsored by New Story Leadership (USA) and Storybag (Netherland)

Educational Development Association Oct 2014 – Dec 2015

Translator
- Manage the translation section (oral and written) for a nongovernmental
organization
- Mentor the freshmen interns
- Translate a variety of legal, political, and cultural documents

PUBLICATIONS

Alostath, K. (2021). Teachers Perception of EFL Students Poor Writing Skills: The
Challenges, Causes, and Remedies. International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR), 10(4), 647–651. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v10i4/SR2
1413012657.pdf

Alostath, K. (2021). Online Learning among Higher Education Students: Challenges

and Strategies. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology.
[accepted for publication]

150
 Editor-Reviewed Online Publications

• Hope can come from unlikely people (2015)

• A book lover’s simple dream (2015)
• Warning: Facebook can be dangerous to your health (2016)
• The Reading Stars of Gaza (2016)
• A sweet spot in Gaza (2017)
• The dilemma of the exile (2019)
• Unconsciousness (2019)
• Melancholy (2019)
• Language of exile (2019)
• Suicide (2019)
• Lost and blue (2020)
• Be my home (2020)
• Depression is like a cloak (2020)
• Midnight shivers (2020)
• Once Upon a Sunset (2020)

EXAMS

IELTS exam Dec 2020

(Overall score: 7.5)

ACHIEVEMENTS

New Story Leadership

- Fellow for the summer 2017 training program, Washington, DC

http://www.newstoryleadership.org/khaled-al-ostath/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jvEZE1IBNc

LANGUAGE SKILLS

Arabic (multiple dialects): Fluent (native)

English: Fluent (native-like)

Turkish: Advanced, professional (third language)

151
 OTHER SKILLS

Researching; public speaking; writing; editing; translating; Microsoft Office;

SPSS; MAXQDA; Python (beginner level); R language (beginner level).

152

View publication stats